Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

COMMONS REGISTRATION (GLAMORGAN) BILL

TOR BAY HARBOUR (TORQUAY MARINA &c.) BILL

Lords amendments agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Community Programme

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to meet the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission to discuss the operation of the community programme.

Mr. Silvester: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the present state of development of the community programme.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): I meet the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission frequently to discuss many matters, including the community programme. At the end of June almost 106,000 places had been approved on the community programme, includilg the community enterprise programme, more than 64,000 of which had been filled. I am satisfied with the progress made so far.

Mr. Knox: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that local authorities are co-operating fully with the Manpower Services Commission on community programme projects?

Mr. Morrison: By and large I am satisfied, although some local authorities, particularly those in London such as the GLC and Lambeth, are not co-operating. As those are the authorities which complain the most about longterm unemployment, one wonders why they are not cooperating.

Mr. Silvester: As voluntary bodies now have more experience of the programme, have they overcome some of the their earlier resistance so that more of them are taking part?

Mr. Morrison: Co-operation from they voluntary sector has been very good. Approximately 40 per cent. of approved schemes have been sponsored by voluntary organisations, and we are grateful for that support.

Mr. Eastham: The Minister referred to non-cooperation by some local authorities. Is he aware that when the Select Committee on Employment took evidence and

local authorities asked about funding and financing they were told that they would be subject to penalty clauses if they spent money?

Mr. Morrison: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is getting at. If some local authorities are co-operating and thus helping the long-term unemployed in their areas, I cannot see why others are not. I can only imagine, certainly in the cases that I have mentioned, that the reasons are purely political.

Mr. Hicks: Is my hon. Friend aware that in certain areas of very high unemployment, such as Cornwall, the number of allocations has almost been exceeded? Is there not a good case for extending the scheme in areas where it has been an outstanding success?

Mr. Morrison: I am aware that in certain areas the scheme has been an outstanding success. As my hon. Friend knows, it has been agreed that there will be 130,000 places nationwide, but if certain areas are not going ahead, for whatever reason, the Government can consider reallocation within the total.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Will the Minister consider moving away from the inflexibility of the £60 per week rule to help many voluntary bodies which wish to take part in the programme but have serious management difficulties due to the inflexibility of the system?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman does not understand—£60 a week is the rate for the job. It is not inflexible as he suggests.

Special Employment and Training Schemes

Mr. Colin Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of places presently occupied in special employment and training schemes.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Alan Clark): At the end of May the total number of people covered by the special employment and training measures was estimated to be 561,000.

Mr. Shepherd: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the correct percentage of resources is being set aside for the enterprise allowance scheme? Will he undertake to monitor it closely so that necessary adjustments can be made as matters develop?

Mr. Clark: The proportion of resources is relatively small—£28 million out of £2 billion—but the success of the pilot scheme shows that it will be well supported. The scheme is distinguished by the fact that it is job generative. In other words, where it is successful, it is likely to increase and generate employment rather than simply effect a one-for-one substitution. However, my hon. Friend is right—we shall have to monitor it. A survey, which will be available in November, will give us data on which we can assess future resource levels.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Is the Minister aware that, at least in my constituency, the only people who are being allowed to be taken on as training officers under this scheme are those who have been unemployed for at least one year? Is he aware that there are people in the dole queue who are highly skilled and have been unemployed for less than one year? Will the Minister try to bring about greater flexibility in the recruitment of training officers?

Mr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman referred to "this scheme." I am not sure whether he was referring to the enterprise allowance scheme, in which that is not the case, or to the community programme, in which, as far as I am aware, that is the rule. If he wants that rule changed I suggest that he submits a proper request to that effect, reasoning it carefully rather than asking a question across the Floor of the House.

Youth Training Places

Mr. Haselhurst: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if the target for the number of youth training places has been met.

Mr. Peter Morrison: Some 95 per cent. of the 460,000 places required for this year have now been identified and I am confident that the target will be met.

Mr. Haselhurst: Does my hon. Friend agree that that reflects great credit on the majority of employers and the majority of trade unions? Does he further agree that it is important to ensure that a high standard of training is set during the first year of the scheme?

Mr. Morrison: I agree that identification of some 95 per cent. of places reflects well on the sponsors. My hon. Friend might like to know that 101 per cent. of the mode A scheme has been identified. That is the target. I also agree that the scheme will live or die by the quality of the training.

Mr. Hoyle: Will the Minister ensure that the number of unemployed is not increased by the ending of the construction industry training board special measures scheme? Under that scheme building trade apprentices are employed, but, unfortunately, the CITB and the Manpower Services Commission cannot agree on who should pay the administrative costs. I am sure that the Minister does not want that to happen.

Mr. Morrison: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am aware of the circumstances between the CITB and the MSC. Hitherto, the MSC has, thanks to taxpayers' money, given a considerable amount of money to the scheme. I gather that negotiations are taking place.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: I am glad that my hon. Friend accepts that a high quality of training is essential for the scheme's success. What measures is he taking to ensure that that quality is monitored properly, and improved if it is not up to standard?

Mr. Morrison: I assure my hon. Friend that the MSC has a standard-setting body and that it has set in train the right monitoring to ensure the right quality.

Mr. Barry Jones: Has not the whole scheme been soured, if not imperilled, by the Government's refusal to increase the £25 per week allowance? Have not the CBI and the MSC reneged on the plan to increase the allowance? Why is the Department acting like a Dickensian workhouse master?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman's reaction is almost implausible. He must understand that for every £1 given in allowance, £1 less can be spent on training. He agrees that the quality of training is important. Surely it must be right to keep the allowance at £25.

Trade Union Reform

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has received any representations from the Trades Union Congress with regard to Her Majesty's Government's proposals for trade union reform.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Tebbit): I regret that the TUC declined to participate in the consultations on the Green Paper "Democracy in Trade Unions". I have, however, told the TUC that I would welcome its comments on the proposals for legislation in this area which I announced to the House last Tuesday.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: When my right hon. Friend meets leaders of the TUC—I am sure that he will—will he consider suggesting that when all the hubbub has died down, the shouting has stopped and my right hon. Friend's proposals have become law, they will find that their leadership is renewed and invigorated as they will discover that they are acting with a clear mandate, having been elected by a majority of their members and, if they want to call an official strike, it will be a clear request from a majority of their members — [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] Moreover—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that one question is fair. Not more.

Mr. Tebbit: I assure my hon. Friend that I shall make those points. They can be put simply — democracy would be no bad thing in the trade union movement.

Mr. loan Evans: Is the Secretary of State aware that the trade union movement is democratic, that the members determine the constitution and that if he wants to introduce secret ballots—which some unions already have—they can decide the issue at their annual conferences? Is he further aware that they have a perfect right as a democratic movement to say that they do not want secret ballots if the majority say so? Why is the Secretary of State dictating to the trade union movement?

Mr. Tebbit: I do not think that to suggest that there should be democratic elections is the mark of a dictatorship. I have often quoted from the Dispatch Box the words of the chairman of the TUC. He said that in the past and, indeed, until now, the extreme Left had lied, intrigued, manipulated and resorted to intimidation to get its way.

Mr. Prentice: Has my right hon. Friend noted the admirable speech of the general secretary of the Civil and Public Services Association? Does he welcome it as a sign of the type of new thinking that is needed for the trade union movement, and does he agree that it could help it take a more modern role and escape from the shop-worn and outdated concept of a labour movement with political and industrial wings?

Mr. Tebbit: I read Mr. Graham's speech with great interest. It shows the extent to which new thinking can be engendered among leaders of trade unions once democracy begins to haunt the counsels of the TUC.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: If the Government want to introduce more democracy and change the basis of political contributions, why is the Secretary of State not introducing measures to make the prior approval of


shareholders necessary for contributions to the Conservative party? Why is he not changing to a system of opting in for the trade unions?

Mr. Tebbit: I have not excluded a system of opting in, but, in view of the representations that various people made to me and, not least, what was said in the House by Labour Members and those who represent trade unions, I thought it right to consult the TUC first to see whether it could find a way in which the rights of trade unionists could be assured without changing completely to contracting in. I wait to see whether it can.
The hon. Gentleman knows that political payments by companies are governed far more tightly by the Companies Acts than are contributions of trade unions under the Trade Union Act 1913. If the hon. Gentleman wants to take the matter further, I am sure that he can table a question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Mr. Needham: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the trade unions are crucial and vital organisations in the future of this country, and that they can never play their proper role until the public accept that their leaders are democratically elected, and seen to be so?

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is right, but what is perhaps just as important is that trade unionists themselves have demanded these reforms.

Mr. Varley: Is the Secretary of State aware that trade unions need no lessons from him about democracy, and certainly not from the Tory party, which is riddled with privilege and thrives on patronage? Does he realise that no one will take the right hon. Gentleman seriously on political levies unless at some stage he announces to the House of Commons that he will introduce legislation to make it possible for shareholders to contract out of paying political donations to the Tory party?

Mr. Tebbit: Trade unions may not want my advice on democracy, but it is certain that they need it badly. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, as he looks at the block votes of a few hundred thousand here and there that will be cast for or against him when he stands for election in the Labour party, may well be converted to my view.

Employment Patterns

Mr. Bulmer: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what resources he devotes to the study of future patterns of employment.

Mr. Alan Clark: The Department is very much concerned with future patterns of employment and devotes a part of its external research budget to this area of study.

Mr. Bulmer: As intelligent anticipation of change is the key to successful investment and essential to informed career guidance for young people, will my hon. Friend make the results of this work available to the House as soon as it comes to hand?

Mr. Clark: What my hon. Friend says is perfectly true. The Department's new employment market research unit, set up at the end of June, will undertake some research of its own, as well as analysing and disseminating the work of others, and I shall ensure that it is available to my hon. Friend and others who are interested.

Mr. Canavan: What about the future employment patterns of rejected Tory Ministers,like Mr. lain Sproat,

who spent much of his time here attacking the unemployed and conducting witch hunts against innocent unemployed people, claiming that they were scroungers? If Mr. Sproat has the audacity to claim unemployment benefit, can we expect an impartial investigation into the possibility of his scrounging activities?

Mr. Clark: The track record of all forecasts of future unemployment prospects of individuals is so unreliable that one would not wish to dwell too long on it. I utterly reject any imputations by the hon. Gentleman about my former hon. Friend, because they tread the delicate border between humour and bad taste.

Mr. Stokes: Has my hon. Friend yet had time in his new office, in which we are so pleased to see him, to study the remarkable fact, which was published recently, that the number of married women in employment has recently risen from 48 to 50 per cent. of all women? In view of the large numbers of other categories who are unemployed, what view does my hon. Friend take of that recent development?

Mr. Clark: I am not sure what view my hon. Friend would like me to express. However, I hope that he will be here tomorrow night for our debate on the Equal Pay (Amendment) Regulations. Perhaps he will make his views known at greater length on that occasion.

Mr. Radice: Does the Minister agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a cut in unemployment benefit would actually increase the number of jobs? If he does, will he tell the House the basis for that statement?

Mr. Clark: I did not hear my right hon. Friend say that, and my understanding is that he did not say it.

Youth Training Scheme

Mr. Gould: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what efforts are being made to ensure that those found places under the youth training scheme go into factories that are registered under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): It is the responsibility of a person who occupies premises for use as a factory to notify the factory inspectorate in accordance with section 137 of the Factories Act. The Manpower Services Commission takes positive steps to remind employers providing places under the youth training scheme of their responsibilities under health and safety legislation.

Mr. Gould: Is it not true that many thousands of youngsters are being cynically put at risk by being put in workplaces where the health and safety standards have never been inspected, and indeed cannot be inspected because of cuts in the factory inspectorate? Is it not also true that the Manpower Services Commission now feels itself under so much political pressure to massage downwards the unemployment figures that it deliberately turns a blind eye to health and safety matters? When will the Secretary of State put an end to this scandalous situation, which has already cost lives and which will continue to cause anxiety to many thousands of families?

Mr. Gummer: There are many of us in the House who care deeply about health and safety and who find the imputations in that question disgraceful. I remind the hon.


Gentleman that the Manpower Services Commission is for trade unions as well as employers, and the suggestions that it would treat cynically young people in this way are so disgraceful that they are not worth answering.

Mr. Craigen: What does the Minister expect the managing agencies, who will be responsible for the placement of many of these youngsters, to do in respect of health and safety matters?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is right to place the matter in that context, unlike his hon. Friend who disgraced the House by the way in which he spoke. I say that because some of us spend a lot of time caring for the health and safety of young people. It is because of what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) rightly says that we have sought to make sure that whenever we have a sponsor of this kind he is reminded that he must obey the law on health and safety. Sponsors do that in the same way as they do it for older workers.

Mr. Barry Jones: The Minister protests too much. Will he please answer my hon. Friend's question? Is his Department prepared to restore the cuts made in the factory inspectorate? Is it not true that the total budget of the Health and Safety Executive and its staff has been cut under this Government?

Mr. Gummer: No, that is not true. The resources available for health and safety represent an increase in real terms over the resources that were provided by the hon. Gentleman's Government, and he knows that. His summing up was not correct. I am perfectly happy to answer the hon. Gentleman's question when he puts it as he has. The resources have been increased.

Mr. Gould: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that the House heard the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that that matter arises under questions.

Labour Statistics

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what information is collected by his Department on the numbers unemployed in various sectors or by type of last employment.

Mr. Alan Clark: Regular analyses of the unemployed by industry and by occupation have been discontinued in the absence of relevant information at unemployment benefit offices, where the count is now made.
Estimates of unemployment by broad sectors of industry and occupational groups will be available, at least on a national basis, from the labour force survey, which is to become annual from next year.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the Minister concede that the system for collecting statistics is defective and does not give the true unemployment figures, for instance, in the construction industry where many more people are unemployed than we are told by the Department? Is he aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's latest statement of a cut in public expenditure will also have a serious effect on the unemployment figures? Is it not time that he told his right hon. Friend, who is a member of the Cabinet, that it is time to get away from this Government's monetarist policy?

Mr. Clark: The system that is employed to collect statistics is not necessarily defective. We have to consider

the future needs of industry, and it is not so important to know where people used to work as to know whether they are willing and able for work in the future, and whether they are ready and willing to change their jobs.

Sir Dudley Smith: In view of that last answer, how are we to take all the unemployment figures seriously when every year thousands and thousands of foreign workers are imported into Britain to do jobs in the service, hotel and catering industries?

Mr. Clark: That is certainly a factor, but the question could be addressed just as well to the Home Office as to the Department of Employment.

Mr. Janner: As the Minister has now admitted that that method of collecting statistics has been discontinued because the Government have deliberately changed the method of collecting information at jobcentres, will he undertake to give the correct unemployment figures, by whatever method he may choose? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the figure now exceeds 4 million?

Mr. Clark: No, Sir.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: In assessing the various sectors of unemployment, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that this country's wealth is still created by the manufacturing sector? Will he therefore make representations, through his Department, to the Treasury so that those who merely move money from country to country, or from organisation to organisation in order to make more money, are taxed far more heavily than those who invest in manufacturing industry, which in turn creates employment?

Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point, but unfortunately I think that it is no longer true that the real wealth of this country lies predominantly in the manufacturing sector. The improvements in employment are weighted towards the service sectors, while the declines are in the manufacturing sector. I am not sure from the second part of his question whether my hon. Friend is arguing for a return to exchange controls, but I am sure that on reflection he will agree that they would be more harmful to the economy than otherwise.

Mr. Radice: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that since the Secretary of State took up his appointment he has managed to reduce unemployment by well over 200,000 by changing the basis of counting from registration to claimants, and by a further 120,000 by excluding men over the age of 60 in the last Budget? Given the Secretary of State's boast at a recent departmental cricket match that he "makes up the numbers", will the Minister give the House a guarantee that he has no plans to remove other categories of the unemployed from the count?

Mr. Clark: I am very doubtful about the hon. Gentleman's premise, but I am sure that the whole House will agree that unemployment will be solved by improving industry's competitive position and not by fiddling around with statistics.

Trades Union Congress

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he next intends to meet the Trades Union Congress; and what matters he proposes to raise in his discussions with it.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he next expects to meet the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress to discuss industrial relations.

Mr. Tebbit: I have written to the TUC inviting it to discuss the steps which the trade unions might take to ensure that their members are fully aware of their statutory rights regarding the political levy and able to exercise them freely. I have also told the TUC that I would welcome its comments on the proposals for legislation on trade union democracy which I announced to the House last Tuesday.

Mr. Adley: I recognise the propaganda value to the Conservative party of Mr. Arthur Scargill and his friends on the lunatic Left, but will my right hon. Friend nevertheless undertake not to encourage them? Will he instead do what from his answer he appears to be doing, and concentrate on generating genuine contacts and dialogues between the Government and organised labour, as represented by the TUC? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that must be of long-term benefit to the nation?

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is right to say that it would benefit the country as a whole if TUC members came back into the scene and desisted from merely sulking in their tents, pretending that the election results have not happened.

Mr. MacKay: When my right hon. Friend meets Mr. Len Murray, will he explain to him that the majority of this democratically elected Parliament, the majority of electors and the majority of trade union members believe that it is in the best interests of good industrial relations that there should be compulsory secret ballots before strikes are called? Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the fact that on this, as on many other issues, the TUC is totally out of touch with its ordinary rank and file members?

Mr. Tebbit: I suspect that Mr. Murray and most of his colleagues believe that it is right to hold ballots before strikes are held. I take the view that it would not be possible to legislate to insist that that was done in every case, but I am sure that the measures I propose will give strong encouragement to trade unions to conduct such ballots.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Does the,Secretary of State recollect that before the election he declared that the Government would introduce statutory strike ballots? Is it not true that the expert advice available to him before the election was exactly the same as it is now? In that case, how does he justify changing his mind, CT at least accusing TUC members of sulking in their tents?

Mr. Tebbit: I do not have to justify a change of mind, because I have not had one. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said, or had read the manifesto, he would know that.

Sir Anthony Grant: Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the TUC the blocking by fanatics belonging to the National Union of Public Employees of a hospital charity concert to help those in pain, merely on the ground that Mr. Jimmy Tarbuck would contribute and that he had supported the Prime Minister at the election? Will my right hon. Friend ask the TUC what it is doing to protect charities from such fanaticism?

Mr. Tebbit: I understand how strongly my hon. Friend feels, but I do not think that that is one of the matters on

which I should wish to consult the TUC. However, I am sure that all those who are aware of NUPE's action will regard it as disgraceful to use the misfortunes of others in that way and to use disabled or sick people as a political football.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman raise with the TUC the subject of the Government's intentions next year towards 17-year olds who have completed the youth training scheme and who cannot join the community enterprise programme because they are too young? I should point out that 18 is the threshold for the CEP. What does the Secretary of State intend to do for those 17-year olds in the intervening year?

Mr. Tebbit: The objective of the youth training scheme is that is should act as a bridge between school and work. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that, given the very encouraging signs of an upturn in the economy, the prospects of those youngsters who come off the YTS in 12 months' time are much better than those that have faced school leavers for some time.

Trade Unions

Mr. Bill Walker: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to introduce measures to make trade unions more accountable to their members.

Mr. Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received on the method of election of trade union officials.

Mr. Gummer: More than 150 organisations and individuals submitted comments on the Green Paper "Democracy in Trade Unions". The consultations showed very wide support for legislation to safeguard the democratic rights of trade union members. The Government's proposals for legislation in these areas were published on Tuesday 12 July.

Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that comprehensive answer. Has he noticed that in this very dry spell of weather some of our wetter colleagues appear to be drying out on the subject of trade union legislation? Does my hon. Friend agree that Opposition Members fail to understand the difference between companies, from which shareholders can withdraw their shares, and trade unions, from which membership is withdrawn at the peril of losing one's job?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right to suggest that there are very few people who do not think that democracy in trade unions is a good thing.

Mr. Ward: My hon. Friend will be aware of the general welcome for the proposals, but is he aware of the concern that any secret ballot should be adequately supervised from the moment the ballot papers are printed until the moment that they are counted? Will he give an assurance that that will be the case?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend speaks the truth when he says that people are very concerned about the conduct of such ballots. It is sad that in this country any such suspicions should be held about the trade union movement. We shall look to the trade union movement to ensure that such suspicions are eradicated.

Mr. Skinner: Have the Minister and his Friends on the Government Front Bench considered extending this type of democracy to Freemasons?

Mr. Gummer: Freemasons are not, as I understand it, a responsibility of this Department.

Mr. Canavan: Nor are the trade unions.

Mr. Gummer: We are dealing with an organisation that has considerable influence and considerable privileges before the law, which Freemasons do not have.

Mr. Eggar: Has my hon. Friend noticed that the number of votes pledged by trade union leaders in the Labour leadership contest already almost exceeds the total number of votes cast at the last election for the Labour party?

Mr. Gummer: I have noticed that. I have also noticed that many of the contenders for the Labour party leadership are insistent on one man one vote when their election comes up, but are not quite so insistent on having one man one vote on matters of trade union legislation.

Mr. Ashton: Is the Minister aware that last Saturday the Prime Minister appointed a vice chairman of the Conservative party? How many ballots and votes did the sheep on the Government Benches have on that appointment? Why are not the same principles applied to the appointment of the vice chairman of the Conservative party as are applied to trade union leaders?

Mr. Gummer: I have sat in the House for nearly nine years and I have often heard the hon. Gentleman say how important the trade union movement is. He has never told me how important the Conservative party is or how important Freemasons are. The one difference between the trade union movement and the Freemasons and the Conservative party is that the trade union movement has legal immunity, and legal immunity means special responsibility.

Long-term Unemployment

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what new plans he has for solving the problem of the long-term unemployed.

Mr. Tebbit: Our principal initiative to help long-term unemployed people in the short term is the community programme, which was launched in October last year.
In the longer term, the best way forward is through the Government's economic policy, which is aimed at creating the conditions for growth.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the Secretary of State not think it deplorable that substantially more than 1 million men and women have been unemployed for more than 12

Table A


Industries showing an increase in the number of employees June 1972—June 1982



Employees June 1972 Thousands
Employees June 1982 Thousands
Increase 1972–82 Thousands
Percentage increase 1972–82


Petroleum and natural gas
3
26
23
760


Food industries not elsewhere specified
34
38
4
12


Soap and detergents
15
16
1
6


Synthetic resins and plastic materials and synthetic rubber
46
48
2
5


Industrial engines
28
30
2
6


Ordnance and small arms
17
24
7
42


Electronic computers
50
59
9
18


Radio, radar and electronic capital goods
80
107
27
33


Cans and metal boxes
28
30
2
6

months? Does he not recognise that that figure has increased in the past year by 123,000? What message of hope will he give those poor unfortunate people?

Mr. Tebbit: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is deplorable. It is regrettable, but he will join me in deploring the activities of many of those who have damaged our shipyards, our steel works and our motor industry by incessant industrial action, particularly under the previous Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman asked about hope. I refer him to the fact that this year car production is up by 7 per cent. on last year; that housing starts are up by 5 per cent.; that sales in the shops are up by 6·3 per cent.; and that industrial production is up by 1·7 per cent. All those things give good grounds for believing that the economy is moving forward, that we are regaining our customers and that as we do that we shall regain lost jobs.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Employment which industries, professions or services or sections or sectors of such industries and services have employed more persons over the past 10 year period when general unemployment has been rising.

Mr. Gummer: In the past 10 years employment has increased in the non-manual occupations, and in the following sectors: distribution; insurance and other financial services; professional and scientific services; miscellaneous services, including leisure industries.
Employment has also increased in a number of industries within the manufacturing sector, such as electronic goods, computers, radio, food industries, car and metal boxes and industrial engines. With permission I shall publish a list of all the industries concerned in the Official Report.

Mr. Taylor: In view of the Government's clear desire to do something to reduce the appalling unemployment levels, would it not be wise for the Government to review the amount of money that is being poured into industries in structural decline and make the limited resources available to industries with enormous potential, such as leisure and tourism?

Mr. Gummer: Those are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I shall see that my hon. Friend's comments are passed on to him.

Following are the industries:

Employees June 1972 Thousands
Employees June 1982 Thousands
Increase 1972–82 Thousands
Percentage increase 1972–82


Cement
15
16
1
7


Printing, publishing of newspapers Printing, publishing of periodicals
139
141
2
1


Water supply
44
65
21
47


Miscellaneous transport services and storage
126
187
61
48


Wholesale distribution of food and drink
213
223
10
4


Retail distribution of food and drink
603
608
5
1


Other retail distribution
1,205
1,207
2
-


Dealing in coal, oil, builders' materials, grain and agricultural supplies
117
128
11
9


Dealing in other industrial materials and machinery
155
201
46
30


Insurance
256
287
31
12


Banking and bill discounting
266
363
97
37


Other financial institutions
102
134
32
31


Property owning and managing etc.
77
123
46
59


Advertising and market research
30
41
11
35


Other business services
184
302
118
64


Accountancy services
80
101
21
26


Educational services
1,536
1,741
205
13


Legal services
103
121
18
18


Medical and dental services
1,075
1,395
320
30


Research and development services
90
104
14
16


Other professional and scientific services
120
421
301
250


Sport and other recreations
76
133
57
76


Betting and gambling
86
96
10
11


Hotels and other residential establishments
230
272
42
18


Restaurants, cafes, snack bars
158
188
30
19


Public houses
189
248
59
31


Clubs
87
135
48
55


Catering contractors
59
85
26
44


Motor repairers, distributors, garages and filling stations
438
466
28
6


Other services
380
621
241
63

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many men and women have been out of work for six months, one year, two years and over two years in the Denton travel-to-work area.

Mr. Gummer: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the Official Report.

Mr. Bennett: Why are these figures twice as bad as they were four years ago when the area enjoyed intermediate status? As we have twice the level of unemployment, and as the time that people must endure without jobs has doubled, why cannot intermediate area status be returned to Greater Manchester and Denton?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman must accept that the only way to increase the number of jobs in a world recession is to make Britain more competitive. Therefore, we have to ensure that the special help that is given is concentrated on those areas with the highest rates of unemployment rather than being thinly spread, when it is of little use.
The following are the figures for the Denton jobcentre area in April, the latest date for which an analysis by duration of unemployment is available.

Duration of unemployment
Male
Female


Up to 26 weeks
603
324


Over 26 and up to 52 weeks
330
163


Over 52 and up to 104 weeks
300
100


Over 104 weeks
196
66

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Penhaligon: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 July.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Penhaligon: Is the Prime Minister aware that during the general election the then Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he had seen the document outlining the circumstances in which American weapons in Britain may be used? Will the Prime Minister confirm that? Will she let us know who else has seen this document and say why the rest of us cannot see it?

The Prime Minister: I cannot confirm whether my right hon. and learned Friend the former Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he had seen the document. If he said that he had, he had. He must answer for that.

Mr. Amery: Will my right hon. Friend consider seriously with our right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary whether the proposed compromise to end the Madrid talks on the Helsinki agreement really fulfils our obligations to ensure human rights? Or is this just agreement for agreement's sake?

The Prime Minister: It is more than agreement for agreement's sake. It is a provisional agreement so far and not yet fully signed. It has two things in particular which we are anxious to achieve. The first is the conference on disarmament in Europe—Europe for the first time being defined as going right up to the Ural mountains—which


will take place in Stockholm in January 1984. Secondly, it has further references to human rights on which two meetings will take place—one in Canada in 1985 and the other in Switzerland in 1986. There will be particular concern for human contacts—the separation of families and so on. We are anxious to have both of those things, and therefore gave our provisional agreement to the document.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Does the Prime Minister accept that in the past local authorities were free to raise their own rates, being answerable only to their electors? The right hon. Lady has asserted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a responsibility for determining the amount raised by local authorities. On what legal basis is that assertion made?

The Prime Minister: Local authorities have only the powers granted to them by statute. Statutes change from time to time. Such changes must go through the House and it is perfectly permissilbe to seek to change statutes from time to time in the customary way.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to issue a reminder to her Ministers that the treaty of Rome makes provision only for a European Assembly, not for a European Parliament? Does she agree that if Ministers, among others, falsely describe it, that encourages those who wish to endow it with powers which the treaty of Rome does not give it so to do, to the disadvantage of the signatories to the treaty?

The Prime Minister: I agree with and confirm what my hon. Friend said, that "Assembly" is the correct title, and it is so called in the treaty of Rome.

Mr. Simon Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Prime Minister explain how she can reconcile the statement in the Gracious Speech that the Government would pursue policies to reduce unemployment with the reported statement yesterday by the Secretary of State for the Environment that the Government's policies on local authority financing would cause considerable numbers of redundancies, possibly including thousands of teachers?

The Prime Minister: If the policies pursued by the Government were such that interest rates rose considerably because of factors within our control, far more jobs would be lost, far more construction projects would be aborted and far more small businesses would not be able to expand. If we are to take advantage of an upturn in world trade we must pursue policies which enable small businesses to expand and new ones to start.

Mr. Sean Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that one of my constituents recently sent his three world war 2 medals to me as a protest, because as he is in receipt of a war pension he is entitled to only 28p a week supplementary benefit? Will the Prime Minister find time to explain to

him where his patriotism and suffering rank on her list of priorities, compared with a runway on the Falkland Islands or tax cuts for the rich?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise a specific case about supplementary benefit, perhaps he will write to me or to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. As a Parliamentary Secretary for three years I dealt with detailed cases, and I shall not answer a specific point about a detailed case without prior notice.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent news that productivity in the British Steel Corporation has reached German levels bodes well for that business and for this country? Is not being competitive the only way to create real jobs in the long term?

The Prime Minister: Yes, BSC productivity is excellent and, I understand, better than our competitors in Germany. In a world in which we hope trade will expand, that is the way to secure orders and jobs for Britain and keep our main factories working.

Mr. Foot: Will the Prime Minister confirm the report in The Times today that on Thursday her Cabinet will have before it proposals from the Chanceller of the Exchequer for a £5 billion cut in projected public expenditure for next year? Is that a correct report?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman has been a member of a Cabinet, he is fully aware that one never reveals agendas, let alone the contents of papers, in advance. He is fully aware of that practice and I am surprised that he should wish to break it, other than for his own personal reasons.

Mr. Foot: Did not The Times get it right about the last round of cuts? As some of the right hon. Lady's Cabinet colleagues apparently complained that they were bounced into cuts then, will she confirm—even if she will not confirm the figure quoted in The Times—that the Cabinet will be discussing projected public expenditure cuts for the year ahead? In the light of her earlier reply, will she tell us whether she agrees with the Secretary of State for the Environment that the projected cuts will lead to a large measure of redundancies? Those are his words. Will those redundancies include more teachers, home helps, dinner ladies and librarians? Is that what will happen under the cuts to be discussed in the Cabinet on Thursday?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is fully aware that this is the time of the year when public expenditure surveys for the following year begin. Decisions for the following year are usually made in the autumn, and for the years after that in the expenditure White Paper in January or later—sometimes as late as the Budget. That is the usual procedure. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that we have published our total expenditure plans for this year and next, and we expect to adhere to them.

Mr. Lyell: Has my right hon. Friend seen a report of the excellent speech yesterday by Prince Charles? Does she agree that not only young offenders but school leavers under 18 would benefit from a period of training of the type mentioned by Prince Charles? Will she ask her right hon. Friends at the Home Office, the Departments of Defence and Employment and the Treasury to liaise to try to make further progress in that direction?

The Prime Minister: I am aware of the speech. A wide range of courses and facilities are available for the supervision of young offenders in the community. The course to which the Prince of Wales referred was the good youth adventure scheme run last year by the Army, which was widely welcomed and greatly appreciated by those who took part. It is being replaced by a much larger youth training scheme to provide training and work expertise. I believe that the number of applications will probably greatly exceed the number of places.

Dr. Owen: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government do not intend to interfere with the Office of Fair Trading's impending court action against the Stock Exchange in the Restrictive Practices Court? Does she admit that it would be extremely odd for a Government committed to fair competition to interfere in that way?

The Prime Minister: The case is still before the court. However, that does not preclude the Stock Exchange council from making proposals to settle the matter. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has told the chairman of the Stock Exchange that he would be prepared to consider such proposals. If proposals are made which the Government can recommend to Parliament, a statement will be made to the House and an order to exempt the Stock Exchange from restrictive trade practices will have to be made. Therefore, it will be a matter for the House.

Gibraltar

Mr. Latham: asked the Prime Minister whether she will pay an official visit to Gibraltar to assess the economic and constitutional problems facing the colony.

The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so, but I saw Sir Joshua Hassan during his visit to London on 29–30 June, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement will be visiting Gibraltar for further talks this week.

Mr. Latham: As the closure of the naval dockyard will save only £13 million, which is one fifth of the cost of a type 22 frigate, will my right hon. Friend be careful not to send the wrong signals to Spain about that closure? Will she ensure that any new commercial dockyard is firmly backed by Government contracts and hard cash?

The Prime Minister: As I believe my hon. Friend is aware, we have made it clear to the Spanish Government that we have a firm commitment to respect the wishes of the people of Gibraltar, as enshrined in the Gibraltar constutional document. We believe that the commercial dockyard provides the best future for Gibraltar. We have made it clear not only that there will be generous financial arrangements—certainly during the earlier years—but that we will give it a number of naval orders to enable it to become viable early in its lifetime.

Mr. Strang: Do the Government still strongly support Spanish accession to the European Community on political grounds? Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity firmly to reject any suggestions from a few of her hon. Friends that the Government should modify their position on Spanish entry to bring pressure on Spain to resolve the Gibraltar issue?

The Prime Minister: I agree that there is a political ground, in that in an uncertain world we need an area of

stability in western Europe, and the European Community is one of the best ways of achieving that. It is clear that Spain cannot enter the EC until the restrictions on the border between Spain and Gibraltar are lifted.

National Economic Development Council

Mr. Madden: asked the Prime Minister when she next intends to attend a meeting of the National Development Council.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Madden: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer appears to have his public expediture sums wrong and, according to today's edition of The Guardian, jumped the gun when he recently announced cuts, will the Prime Minister assure the NEDC and everyone else that there is now no need for doctors or nurses to be sacked or for any more NHS hospitals to be closed?

The Prime Minister: The public sector borrowing requirement figures will be published on Thursday. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to have some measure by which to judge the figures, he might recall that the PSBR figure for the same time a year ago was £1·1 billion, but the outturn was £9 billion.

Mr. Eggar: Will my right hon. Friend draw the attention of the NEDC to the excellent article in the Lloyds Bank Review this week, which urged the privatisation of a number of nationalised industries? Will she stress again and again that the Government are determined to denationalise and to introduce competition wherever possible?

The Prime Minister: Yes, the Government are determined to denationalise and to introduce competition. Whatever financial rules and regulations we make for nationalised industries, there is no substitute for competition. It is our objective to increase the amount of competition and, therefore, to increase the service and choice to the consumer.

Mr. Straw: If, as the Prime Minister asserted, it is not normal practice to disclose in advance details of what is coming up for discussion in Cabinet, will the right hon. Lady say whether the No. 10 press office acted with her authority when, on Sunday, journalists were briefed to the effect that this Thursday the Chancellor would be making proposals for major cuts in public spending?

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not an open question. It refers to meetings of the National Economic Development Council.

Engagements

Mr. Winnick: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 19 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Winnick: When will the Government reappraise the situation in Northern Ireland? Is the right hon. Lady aware that if the deaths and injuries that have occurred in the Province in recent years had taken place on the mainland there would have been many debates and many decisions would have been taken by the Cabinet to bring


the issue to the House of Commons? Does she agree that there is need to consult Dublin to try to find a solution to the tragedy that is occurring in the Province?

The Prime Minister: Any question concerning the future of Northern Ireland must be dealt with according to

the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland and in accordance with any measure that can be passed through this House. The overriding need is to try to fight terrorism on every front, including with the co-operation of the Republic of Ireland.

Glass Container Industry

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the crisis in the glass container industry.'
In 1979, the United Kingdom demand for glass containers was 49·7 million gross. By the end of 1983 the market is likely to be 41 million gross, a projected decline of 18 per cent. This state of affairs has been met by redundancies on the part of management. Since 1979, this once highly profitable industry has steadily gone down hill and is now a huge loss-maker. The work force has been halved and their standard of living reduced.
The matter I raise is specific in that, for example, the Rockware Glass Company has reduced its work force from 5,000 in 1979 to 2,500 by the start of this year and the company is at present engaged in an exercise to reduce the number of jobs by a further 550, 350 at the firm's factory in my constituency.
The United Glass Company has reduced its work force in the glass container section from 6,251) in 1979 to 3,300 today. I was informed yesterday that the company is to close down completely its Castleford plant with a loss of 590 jobs. That makes a total loss of jobs in my constituency of 950 announced in the last fortnight.
The matter is indeed urgent when one considers that the United Glass Company is to transfer work from my constituency, which has an unemployment rate of 13·6 per cent., to an area of the southern part of the country with an unemployment rate of just over 11 per cent., 1 per cent. less than the national average. The decision cannot have been taken on the basis of social concern.
Considering that recently, with the aid, I understand, of a substantial Government grant, the Canning Town Glass Company introduced a modernised glass container furnace at its factory in the southern part of the country to increase the firm's production capacity—at a time when the glass container market is already overcrowded—one must ask whether it is Government policy, aided by their friends in industry, to move jobs to the southern part of the country at the expense of the north.
The matter I raise is urgent and the House should be given an opportunity to debate it. However, Mr. Speaker, you may feel unable to grant my request. If so, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the crisis in the glass container industry.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 10, I am directed to take account of the several factors set out in the order, but to give no reason for my decision.
I have given careful consideration to the representations that the hon. Gentleman has made, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House. However, as he intimated in his final sentence, he will doubtless find other parliamentary ways of raising the matter.

Defence Estimates

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I beg to move,
That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1983, contained in Cmnd. 8951.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Heseltine: In presenting my first White Paper to the House, I am conscious that the whole subject of defence has become a matter of profound public interest and concern. That is hardly surprising, for at no time outside the conditions of world war has mankind consumed such massive resources in the purchase of armaments and in the financing of military strength.
The NATO Alliance spends an average of 5·2 per cent. of its national output on defence, this country spends 5·1 per cent., the United States 6·6 per cent. and the Soviet Union between 14 and 16 per cent. No state, however impoverished, takes the first fledgling step to nationhood without adding its own demands to the existing world armament trade of about $50 billion a year. In world arms sales the United States sells about $181/2 billion per annum, the Soviet Union $13 billion, France $61/2 billion, this country $3 billion and Israel $1·2 billion.
I start with these figures because they reveal most clearly the simple fact that our defence policy does not exist in a vacuum. We deal neither with an ideal world nor with a world over which we on our own could have more than the most minor of influences. Each of those statistics is the product of countless decisions by sovereign nation states. They articulate the real world in which we live. It is against these that we have to make the judgments and determine the resources that are necessary for our own defence.
To these we must add not only an historic perspective but our views about the motives of other Governments across the world. The responsibility to protect our national sovereignty is so absolute, so central to all our other freedoms, that the task of Secretary of State for Defence must be based on assumptions of the most extreme caution.
Defence is centred on the realities of the world as it is and not as we would wish it to be. We cannot close our minds to the confrontations, tensions and opposing ideologies which exist. We cannot ignore the massive and frightening level of armaments. We certainly cannot ignore the military power of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. Whatever one's interpretation of their motives, the indisputable facts are that the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact are more powerful today than they have ever been, and in every field of defence.
There are those who see the Russians as a deeply conservative people who feel threatened by an aggressive and alien Western culture. In this view the Soviet Union maintains massive forces to defend the Russian homeland. They also have their history—a history of invasion of Russian territory and massive loss of life in the Napoleonic and first and second world wars. I have no doubt that these feelings are part of the cultural inheritance of the leaders in the Kremlin, but equally I am sure that we cannot give them the benefit of the doubt. They have shown that their intentions are not only defensive; they have shown that


they are prepared to sacrifice the economic well-being of their people by maintaining a level of military force that goes far beyond the requirements of self-defence. They have time and again, most recently in Afghanistan, used military force to subject a sovereign nation.
As Defence Secretary, I cannot ignore the continuing and dramatic modernisation of Soviet nuclear and conventional forces. Since 1970 they have introduced three new types of intercontinental strategic nuclear ballistic missiles and at least three new submarine-launched ballistic missiles. The United States, on the other hand, has put only two new submarine-launched ballistic missiles into service. In the area of intermediate range nuclear forces, the imbalance between the Soviet and NATO longer-range missiles and aircraft continues to grow. So far as the conventional balance is concerned, NATO tanks, artillery and aircraft are outnumbered by factors of between two and three to one. Under Admiral Gorshkov the Soviet navy has been forged into a major force able to operate worldwide.
The policy in the White Paper is primarily designed, along with the policy of our allies to meet the risk that this threat presents. The purpose of the Government's defence policy is to preserve the peace and freedom of the British people through the collective security provided by our membership of the NATO Alliance of free Western nations.
There can be no coherent strategy to defend Europe without America. There is no more evident manifestation of American support for this view than the 500,000 service men and their families serving in Europe. I believe it of particular significance that we should reaffirm our welcome to the 60,000 of them who are based in Britain. NATO is a defensive alliance of mutual convenience. There are no aggressive plans within the NATO Alliance. No democratic Government and no electorate would tolerate such a prospect.
In the execution of this strategy we set ourselves four main defence roles. The first, is the defence of the United Kingdom home base. In any major crisis our island role would be no less critical than in earlier times. We would need to reinforce the land base of Europe and keep open the life lines of the Atlantic. We shall continue to enhance the defence of these islands by expanding the Territorial Army from 70,000 to 86,000 and creating a home service force to guard key installations. We shall maintain the major planned improvements in the air defence of the United Kingdom. The first of our fleet of Nimrod mark 3 airborne early warning aircraft should become operational next year. The air-defence version of Tornado will enter service in the mid-80s. The programme to modify 72 Hawk aircraft to carry sidewinder AIM 9L missiles is under way. We shall continue to improve the defence of our home waters by adding new minesweepers and hunters and introducing modern torpedos—Stingray—and active sonars with a better shallow water performance.
For our second role, on the central front in Germany, the BAOR and RAF Germany are the tangible evidence of Britain's commitment to the Alliance strategy of forward defence. In this year alone the Challenger tank, tracked Rapier and the Tornado aircraft will all enter service.
The third role is to provide the strong naval and maritime air forces that are fundamental to NATO's sea defences in the eastern Atlantic and the channel. We plan

in this financial year to spend about £750 million more in real terms on the Navy than was spent in the year before we came to office. We shall still be spending more on the conventional navy, even when expenditure on modernising the strategic deterrent is as its peak, than we were in 1978–79.
An extensive modernisation programme for the fleet is in hand. In the last year, orders have been placed for four type 22 frigates, a nuclear-powered fleet submarine; two Hunt class mine counter measures vessels and 10 fleet minesweepers for the Royal Naval Reserve. In all, 33 warships have been ordered since May 1979, valued at £1,875 million.
My predecessor announced that all the ships lost in the south Atlantic would be replaced. In the case of the destroyers and frigates, orders for three of the replacement ships have already been placed. I now intend to invite tenders for the fourth replacement and for an additional frigate beyond those already authorised. I shall be inviting tenders for these two frigates from the British shipbuilders yards of Cammell Laird, Swan Hunter and Vosper Thornycroft.
Lastly, there is our independent contribution to the strategic and theatre nuclear forces of the Alliance, about which much has been said in recent weeks. The Government are committed to the replacement of Polaris by Trident in the mid-1990s in order to sustain this essential element of our defences.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about the negotiations that are taking place with Brazil on the possibility of importing from Brazil 150 Embraer training aircraft? What about these discussions?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend the Minister of State might be able to expand on that matter when he speaks tomorrow. I believe that there are no such negotiations and that the requirement that would be the basis of such negotiations has not been finalised in my Department. If there is anything that my hon. Friend wishes to add to my reply, I am sure that he will take the opportunity of doing so tomorrow.
I have set out the four principal roles that we set ourselves. Inevitably, they add up to a formidable defence budget, this year amounting to nearly £16 billion. This is an increase in cash, after the adjustment I announced last week, of some £1,300 million over last year. A defence budget of such a scale has implications beyond the nation's defence. Our industry and technological base is profoundly influenced by this budget, which by its very scale must involve a social responsibility too. Defence expenditure sustains well over 1 million jobs in the services, their civilian support and in the defence industries. There is a continuing need to provide our armed services with the latest advanced technology, much of which is bound to be developed by our allies. Despite this, about 95 per cent. of the defence equipment budget is spent with British industry.
Naturally I hope to see this continue, but I must ensure that a natural desire to protect a strategic industrial base does not lead to assumptions and practices that produce avoidable cost and inefficiency. I intend to pursue on a wider scale the stimulus of competition in defence procurement and to open up opportunities wherever I can to small and emerging companies.
There has rightly been comment recently about the scale of research and development expenditure within the defence budget. We are spending this year over £300 million on research and some 1³6 billion on development. Together they account for 1·9 billion or over 10 per cent. of our total budget. This is by any standards a major part of the nation's total activity of this sort.
I do not intend to expand at length on my views on this subject save only to make these general observations. First, it is essential that defence research expenditure should be subject to rigorous appraisal to ensure that it will have a military pay-off. Secondly, it is important that wherever practical the national asset that this research represents is exploited for commercial purposes. Thirdly, it must be an appropriate objective of Government policy that, to the maximum extent possible, defence research and development is undertaken by private companies so that there is a general enhancement of the research and development resources of those companies themselves. Fourthly, we must ensure that our development expenditure is not being driven by over-ambitious or gold-plated requirements and that there are adequate incentives to the companies involved to keep down costs.
I mentioned the social opportunity within my Department. I have already announced a services youth training scheme which will provide a year's training with the services for some 5,200 unemployed young people, who will join one of the services for 1·2 months, part of which will be spent in formal training and in gaining some work experience. I can now tell the House that I intend to proceed with a parallel scheme in Ministry of Defence civil establishments which will provide training for a further 2,000 youngsters. We are talking to the unions about arrangements and intend to commence the scheme this autumn.
No one can approach the task of managing the Ministry of Defence without an awesome appreciation of its scale. In keeping with the Government's objective of introducing a range of new management practices to Whitehall and the recommendations of the report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, we have already introduced the management information system MINIS to the Department. Over the medium term I would expect significant change to flow from this innovation.
A fundamental misconception exists in the minds of those who describe our defence capability, or portray it, as an aggressive force. Nothing could be further from the truth. As its name so clearly states, mine is a Ministry of Defence, and defence in today's world is largely about deterrence. The theory of deterrence is simple. It rests on the need to convince a potential aggressor that no attack by him could gain advantage for him. It is not necessary to be able to deploy superior forces against an aggressor at every level of military capability, but it is necessary to convince an opponent that one has the range of weapons in every class to give one a flexible capability to respond to any attack. One must have a range of weapons systems sufficiently interrelated for an enemy to believe that escalation from one weapon system to another is credible and possible. Not only is such a range of weapons systems needed, but they must be modernised with every advancing generation of technology to ensure that they remain credible against the advancing technology and counter measures of an opponent.
The Opposition amendment refers to a nuclear freeze. But what happens if our opponents do not freeze?

Increasingly, our deterrent loses capability as our opponents widen the technological gap between us. What happens if we both freeze to the point that nuclear deterrence is rendered incredible by the advancing technology of counter measures and protective systems, thus leaving only conventional deterrence, where the Soviet Union has a vast superiority?
Equally, a "no first use" declaration by NATO would be an abandonment of flexible response. Flexible response does not imply a commitment to the early use of nuclear weapons, but it means that the Soviet Union must reckon with the possibility that NATO would be prepared if necessary to use nuclear weapons. Deterrence would be gravely weakened if we signalled to the Soviet Union that it could fight a conventional war in Europe without putting its homeland at risk. If NATO ever reached the point of having to consider the use of nuclear weapons, the objective would still be the same: to send a clear and unmistakable signal to Soviet leaders that they had miscalculated the Alliance's resolve to resist and that by continuing the conflict they would be running unacceptable risks. The "no first use" in which I believe is the no first use of any weapons, and the best insurance for that policy is the maintenance of the policies that have kept Europe's peace for nearly 40 years.
As part of flexible response, we must ensure that the Soviet Union would never come to believe that it had such predominance at any level of force—whether nuclear or conventional — that it could terminate hostilities at a point of its choosing. That way deterrence would fail and war would be much more likely. For that reason, we must maintain an adequate capability in intermediate range nuclear forces.
The NATO Alliance, in its twin track decision of 1979, gave the Soviet Union the clearest warning that if it did not withdraw its intermediate range missiles, four years later, in 1983, NATO would deploy its own deterrent system — Pershing 2 and cruise missiles. When that warning was given the Soviets deployed about 120 SS20 missiles, each with three warheads. Today the figure is more than 350. Two thirds of those missiles are targeted on western Europe, so that the number of SS20s aimed at western Europe has trebled since we first issued the warning in 1979.
During that time the NATO RAF Vulcan force has been withdrawn. No responsible British Government could stand aside from this evident and growing threat, especially since the Fl11s based in this country will become increasingly vulnerable to Soviet air defences and counter measures. We should not forget that, even if the full deployment of Pershing 2 and cruise missiles were to take place, they would still represent less than half of the number of warheads already deployed on the Soviet side.
But let the House understand one thing with absolute clarity. Today there are no cruise missiles in Europe. There are no Pershing 2 missiles in Europe, and if the Soviet Union had responded to our zero option initiative there was absolutely no need for them to come here. It is still not too late, but all the indications are now that the most optimistic outcome from Geneva would be an interim agreement not to avoid deployment, but to limit its scale based on equal numbers of warheads on both sides. The Government would welcome that, especially if it led to further deployments that ultimately approached the zero option.
In all that I have said so far, I am merely retracing and updating the policies of every British Government since the second world war. No British Government since the second world war have pursued policies that were significantly different from those that I am presenting to the House today. All Governments identified largely the same threat, and they all responded approximately and appropriately in much the same way.
There are those who define the process of deterrence in the pejorative language of an increasingly uncontrolled arms race. No one, regardless of party, can escape the pressures within every country and every alliance that tend to propel military expenditure remorselessly upwards. President Eisenhower, in a perceptive speech in 1961, referred to the dangers of the military industrial complex. It serves no purpose to single out the senior officers of the world's military establishments or the chairmen of the armaments companies. Each has a clear duty either to ensure that his armed services have the finest equipment they can afford, or that his work people are employed and his company profitable. There is a relentlessness about that process. Every commander is continually searching for the latest technological advance, while every chairman must look to the markets of tomorrow for the sales upon which his company depends. The only way to break into this seemingly relentless process is by political initiative on both sides.
Of course, our people want peace. They would support a reduction in the massive nuclear and conventional arsenals in the world today, but only on terms that are compatible with the peace they have enjoyed for nearly 40 years and not on terms that might destabilise that peace.
They recognise that one cannot negotiate peace with the calculating realists in the Kremlin from a position of weakness. They believe that one enhances the prospects of peace more by remaining strong than by becoming weak. However, they expect us to deploy every energy in the pursuit of balanced, verifiable and fair arms control. They expect that of us, and we have every intention to live up to that expectation. Every aspect of armament control is now the subject of detailed negotiation by the political leaders of the world. To that extent, simply because we are talking the opportunity is as great as it has ever been.
I shall outline to the House this agenda for peace, because it is comprehensive. In the strategic arms reduction talks, which cover United States and Soviet intercontinental nuclear weapons, the United States proposes a reduction in warheads on strategic missiles to 5,000 on each side. That would reduce existing deployment by about one third from present levels. If those negotiations were to lead to a substantial breakthrough, we have made it clear that Britain, in reviewing the future size of its irreducible minimum deterrent, would not stand aside from such a breakthrough. In the intermediate range nuclear weapons talks—

Dr. David Owen: When the Secretary of State uses the words "would not stand aside", is he saying that we would reduce substantially the number of Trident missiles and warheads and that we would be prepared to put the Trident missile system into the negotiations and effectively take it into account in such a substantial reduction of strategic weaponry?

Mr. Heseltine: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman would understand that what I am saying is that, if in the strategic arms reduction talks there were to be a substantial breakthrough in the scale of world deployment, that would be taken into account by the British Government in deciding their own irreducible level of deterrent in the new context that would then exist. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will welcome that statement.

Mr. Julian Amery: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that there is an irreducible minimum and that, however much the Soviets and the Americans reduce, we could not go much lower than what is now proposed?

Mr. Heseltine: My right hon. Friend will have noticed that the word "irreducible" is clearly enshrined in my speech.
In the intermediate range nuclear weapons talks the Alliance proposed the zero option but has indicated that it is prepared to consider a reasonable interim settlement based on equal numbers of warheads. We have gone further. If an interim agreement is concluded after deployment has started, we would seek to extend it further by offering to withdraw those weapons already deployed if the Russians will do the same.
Our proposals in the mutual and balanced force reduction talks for conventional forces in Europe would reduce the number of troops stationed by either side within the area concerned to 900,000 on each side.
On chemical weapons, in March Britain took an important initiative of its own in support of Western moves to bring about a global ban. It has always seemed to me that one of the most exposed positions of those who argue for one-sided gestures of disarmament lies in the experience that we have had with the Soviet Union on chemical weapons. After the second world war, we gave up our capability. The Russian response has been to build up a massive offensive capability. That was a one-sided gesture. Sadly it remained one-sided.
I have no doubt that in private, behind closed doors, there are those in the Soviet Union who fervently wish that the resources of armaments could be redirected to the peaceful pursuit of material well-being. No one can doubt that that is the wish and aim of the Western world. So it must be our responsibility, not only to remain strong against the dangers of failure but, equally, to pursue with every endeavour the prospects of arms reduction and control by negotiation. That is why the genuineness and consistency with which we pursue this agenda for peace are so critical.
It is perfectly true that a basis of trust with the Soviet Union does not at present exist. But let us also understand that it will feel something very similar about us. The quality of diplomacy is measured by the attainment of lasting, verifiable and balanced agreements between nations that do not always share a common trust. We may not succeed, but it would be unforgivable not to try. Many in the world today could point to the need for common survival as the best ground for the development of a common trust. The White Paper sets out our commitment to both.

Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:


believes that the plans outlined in the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1983 (Cmnd. 8951) do not provide the United Kingdom with a viable defence against aggression; regrets the Government's failure to take any initiative to stop the escalation of the nuclear arms race and, as a first step, to support a nuclear freeze; notes that the Government plans would require the United Kingdom, which already spends more oil the defence of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation both in terms of gross national product and per head of the population than any other member of the Alliance, to increase that spending still further; and therefore calls upon the Government to work within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation for a strong non-nuclear defence policy and, in particular, to cease its reliance upon Trident and the deployment of Cruise missiles within the United Kingdom.
When the first atomic bomb was dropped in 1945, The Manchester Guardianwrote:
Man has at last discovered the means of encompassing his own destruction.
The other day I was looking through a collection of letters that I wrote to my parents when I was a young naval officer during world war 2. One in particular caught my attention. It was written from HMS Formidable, the carrier in which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) and I served. On 9 August 1945, the day that the second atom bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, I tried to describe the feelings of the British Pacific fleet, then off the coast of Japan, about the dropping of the atomic bomb. I wrote.
I can only sum up the general feeling best if I say that only a strong international authority can save the world from destroying itself.
The tragedy of our time is that, having set up that international authority, the allies of 1945 denied it the real power necessary to create permanent peace. Some 20 years ago another opportunity was lost. The disarmament committee of the United Nations approved the working document agreed by both the United States and the USSR, based upon their agreed principles for disarmament negotiation. That document envisaged a directly recruited United Nations peacekeeping force leaving to the national forces of every country in the world only such forces as might be necessary to defend their territories from aggression.
It was not proceeded with, but such a policy cries out to be undertaken in the increasingly dangerous world of 1983. Why do the Government do nothing about it? After all, throughout modern history the defence of our country has rested upon our ability to survive ourselves until a grand Alliance could be formed that was strong enough to vanquish our enemies. We were never able to do so alone. Global collective security is only an extension of that principle.
The trouble is that the Tory Government have always had an ambivalent attitude to the United Nations and an indefensible policy on arms control. There could not be a better illustration of that than their attitude to the nuclear freeze. I thought that the Secretary of State's attempts to justify the Government's arguments was in the fine tradition of total weakness of argument.
On 13 December 1982 there was a resolution of the General Assembly, which was sponsored jointly by Sweden and Mexico and adopted by no fewer than 119 votes to 17. It called for a nuclear freeze. The Government opposed it. There could not be two weaker excuses than those given on page 8 of the statement. The first is that a freeze would
perpetuate and legitimise Soviet superiority".

What does superiority in nuclear weapons mean, when both the United States and the Soviet Union have the power to destroy all life on this planet several times over? That is defence provision gone mad. Even using that insane basis, the White Paper reverses the mathematics. The right hon. Gentleman talks in terms of nuclear warheads. Apparently it is a good thing that at last the Russians are prepared to count in nuclear warheads rather than in missiles as such, but the Russians possess 20,000 nuclear warheads and the Americans possess 33.000. That is the gap between them.
The second excuse is that verification would be difficult. I recommend the Secretary of State to visit the Pentagon. When I was there last year, I was assured by the American Under-Secretary of Defence that verification was easy and involved no technical difficulties. In that event, why in the White Paper is it stated that verification is difficult? Why the inaccuracies and why the weasel words of the Secretary of State in answer to his right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Arnery)? I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Pavilion. We have not agreed for a long time. He has his views on the possession of nuclear weapons for our country. He was entitled to ask his question. He got the standard evasion of a Secretary of State who has not the slightest desire to negotiate a peaceful end to nuclear weapons.

Dr. Keith Hampson: The right hon. Gentleman did not listen to the speech.

Mr. Silkin: I did. I listened carefully. That is exactly what the Secretary of State said.
Some years ago, the British were principals in these negotiations. Today the Conservative Government leave these negotiations entirely to Reagan, even to the extent of refusing to include Polaris, let alone Trident, in the talks, although many influential members of NATO say that that is the right and sensible thing to do at this point. In the service of Reagan's America, Tory Britain has voted us out of the negotiating chamber and helped to cut our influence for peace in the United Nations. If the Government have ignored the opportunities offered in the United Nations—

Mr. Churchill: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the current position of the Labour party on disarmament? Some of us got the message that his party was in favour of disarmament. Now he tells us, as does this amendment, that his party favours a nuclear freeze. This is completely different, because it would require no measure of disarmament by the Soviet union and it would let them off the hook.

Mr. Silkin: No wonder the hon. Gentleman was so ineffective during the general election campaign. He did not read our defence policy, our manifesto or our speeches. He does not have the ability to understand exactly what I am saying and what I intend to continue to say.

Dr. Hampson: He has just listened to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Silkin: I will send the hon. Gentleman a copy of our defence policy to read, if he can read.
If the Government have ignored the opportunities offered in the United Nations, what about those alliances that are based on the United Nations charter? It is too often forgotten that the NATO Alliance was founded by the


Labour Government in 1949. It came into existence not to challenge the United Nations charter, but to fulfil it. That is why the preamble to the NATO treaty reads:
The parties to this treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the U.N. charter and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all Governments.
The preamble continues:
They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law.
It is an unhealthy sign that Turkey, with its repellent dictatorship, is a member of such a democratic organisation. Human rights shall be considered not only in Madrid; there is every reason to consider them in Ankara as well. If the Tory Government believe that NATO is about defending democracy, they should be forcing that dictatorship to take account of human rights. Instead, as the resources of aid are cut, the proportion given to the military dictatorship in Turkey increases.
Is that because the Tory Government are so wedded to the Reagan Administration that they are as willing to champion tyranny in Europe as Reagan has done in Latin America? Are the Government frightened that, unless they support the stupidest or most reactionary policies pursued by the Americans in NATO, Reagan will leave the Alliance?
I was interested to hear the Secretary of State talk about the resumption of chemical warfare studies by the Russians. Does that account for the fact that there has not been a whimper of complaint from the Secretary of State about Reagan's decision to resume chemical warfare studies? In this arena there is nothing to choose between the two super-powers, and the Government should be as firm with the United States as they are with the USSR. Both should be called upon—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman wants the United States to continue chemical warfare.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): Disgraceful.

Mr. Silkin: I want them both to give it up.

Mr. Heseltine: In the interests of accuracy, the right hon. Gentleman will be fully aware that the Soviet Union has a fully developed chemical warfare capability, which it has used. The United States has largely forgone this. Only recently it took a decision to continue investigations into this matter because the Soviet Union has shown no concern or interest about the relative imbalance of the West in chemical warfare capability.

Mr. Silkin: The right hon. Gentleman confirms what I have been saying — that both super-powers are to blame. Why do not the right hon. Gentleman and the Government protest about them both doing it? If it is right for us to abolish it, it is right for them to do so also. The Government need not worry. There is no fear that Reagan will leave the Alliance. Reagan needs NATO as much as, if not more than, we need Reagan.
The British fleet safeguards the freedom of the United States by protecting the Atlantic approaches and the eastern seaboard of America—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The British fleet, which is the third biggest in the world and the most efficient, guarantees American independence, as it has done for 200 years. As President Roosevelt put it:

The best immediate defense of the United States is the success of Great Britain in defending itself.
The protection given to America is enjoyed by every other member of NATO.
In addition, the United Kingdom is NATO's paymaster. In terms of GNP and per head of the population, the United Kingdom spends more on NATO than any other member, not excluding the United States. The Labour party has pointed out consistently the unfairness and lack of wisdom of such a policy. That is why we believe in a policy that is not just more in accord with our global objectives but is also more cost-effective. It is time that the burden of defence expenditure—

Dr. Owen: does the right hon. Gentleman remember that in 1978 the Labour Government increased defence spending in line with the NATO commitment of 3 per cent. per year in real terms? I do not seem to remember that he was against that then.

Mr. Silkin: There is nothing wrong with saying that. It is absolutely right. However, the right hon. Gentleman must face up to precisely what has happened to national resources under this Government. During the past four years, since the Government came to power, the gross national product has decreased by over 15 per cent. In those circumstances, the proportion of resources spent by this country on NATO has increased. That is precisely what I was saying. It is time that the burden was shared more fairly.
Instead, the Secretary of State in his press conference on the publication of the statement—he did not talk about it in the House, but he had a press conference—envisaged an increase in our spending on NATO regardless of what our allies might do. I was waiting for him to tell us where the cuts would come. As we all know, cuts have been enforced by the Chancellor. I am sorry that he did not tell us, but perhaps we shall receive more information during the course of what is, after all, a two-day debate.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: He does not know himself yet.

Mr. Silkin: That is probably true. Are our European allies so wrong to believe, as most of them do, that NATO cannot afford a strategy based on the use of nuclear weapons in Europe? Earlier this year, in the latest war game of several—this one was called "Wintex '83"—as always, NATO rehearsed world war 3.
The war game began, as usual, with a Russian invasion of West Germany. It ended, as always, with NATO firing nuclear weapons first. The West went nuclear because its armed forces could not prevent the red army from overrunning western Europe. Instead of stopping the Russians in their tracks, firing nuclear weapons brought the NATO exercise to an embarrassing halt. No one needed to guess what would happen next. Far from Russia being warned, as the Secretary of State tells us it would be, in this war game, Russia, as it has always said it would, retaliated in kind and attacked with nuclear weapons. A worldwide nuclear war became unavoidable.
That exercise showed the flaw at the heart of NATO's present deterrent strategy, which is based upon the proposition that NATO could not withstand a conventional attack by Warsaw pact forces by conventional means alone. Far from possessing cruise and Pershing 2 missiles as purely retaliatory weapons after an assault by SS20s, NATO would first loose the dogs of nuclear war.
The decision to deploy American cruise and Pershing missiles in Europe was made for political rather than military reasons. It has created a crisis more dangerous than any in the past 30 years, and not just in East-West relations. The proposals have created considerable tensions within the Western Alliance itself, as the debates in, for example, Denmark and the Netherlands have shown. In Denmark, against the express wishes of the Danish Government, the Danish Parliament has voted for the installation of cruise and Pershing to be held up pending discussions with the Russians. In the Netherlands, an uneasy Government with a hostile population are busy trying to avoid having to make up their mind. The other members of the Alliance grow steadily more concerned. Instead of cementing the Alliance, the proposals to site cruise and Pershing in Europe have deeply divided the peoples of the Atlantic Alliance.
These weapons solve nothing. They merely prove that if there is war in Europe it is the United States President who will make the final decision as to whether nuclear weapons should be used, whatever kind words may have been inserted to help the Prime Minister pretend that she has a say in their use.

Mr. Amery: The right hon. Gentleman is assuming, if I understand him, the possibility of a conventional Russian attack in Europe. What other way has he in mind of deterring that, apart from Western nuclear strategy? Is he prepared to go for an increase in conventional forces that would match that?

Mr. Churchill: No, surrender.

Mr. Silkin: I fought in the world war, which is more than the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) has done. I am in favour of a conventional response and therefore I believe in meeting a conventional attack, if such an attack were to come, with conventional forces. I do not believe in nuclear forces.

Mr. Amery: The right hon. Gentleman has said that he wants to meet conventional with conventional, but if we do not have adequate conventional forces to meet the attack, what are the choices? They are either nuclear or surrender.

Mr. Silkin: The answer lies in two facts. First, we have the conventional forces available. I do not have much time, but I recommend that the right hon. Member for Pavilion — I am not being patronising, as I mean it seriously —reads a book that has cone out recently, which he may not have seen. It is called "Not over by Christmas" and is by Colonel Dinter of NATO and Dr. Griffith, the military historian. That puts the case as well as it can be, and should be read. Apart from that, there is all the new technology, which the White Paper also mentions.
Again, the proposals assume that the Russians will not increase the use of nuclear weapons. However, such an assumption is naive. The decision to site Pershing in Europe means that, for the first time, missiles that can reach Moscow in six minutes will be sited on German soil, which is a major change that is bound to affect the Russians and their view of the West's intentions.
The Secretary of State rightly said that, deep in the Russian folk memory, is the vulnerability of Russia to foreign invasion. Tyrants whose eyes were fixed upon Russia have arisen in the West from the lime of Napoleon

to the time of Hitler. The results have always been the mass destruction of Russian territory and the loss of Russian lives on an appalling scale. More than 20 million Russians died in world war 2, safeguarding their independence and that of other countries. Nobody who has visited Moscow can have any doubt that the Russian Government and people are united in their determination that this shall not happen again. This folk memory accounts for—I do not say excuses—the building of a satellite empire from the Baltic to the Black sea to prevent the full initial force of an attack being felt on Russian territory.

Mr. Heseltine: What excuse does the right hon. Gentleman have for Afghanistan?

Mr. Silkin: I have no excuse for any aggression, wherever it may be. I have no excuse for Afghanistan, Vietnam or aggression by anybody.
The trouble is that the Russian strategy was originally based on the need for protection from tanks, but missiles travel faster than tanks. The siting of these missiles on German soil inevitably promotes fear and suspicion, and the first results of this are now being seen. Many people fear that Russia will soon locate missiles in other Eastern bloc countries, even though the countries may not want them. Thus, the nuclear stockpiles in Europe on both sides may be increased, and hence the risk of nuclear war will increase as well.
In the face of all this, the Government's decision to increase the installation of cruise missiles on British territory is the reverse of a real defence policy. Such a stance is not resolute but irrational. What is equally irrational is that the Secretary of State appears to welcome a nuclear confrontation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] In Defence Questions on 12 July this year, the Secretary of State was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) whether he would at least delay the installation of cruise missiles pending the negotiations. The right hon. Gentleman touched on that in his speech today. His reply then was:
Conservative Members think that four years is adequate if the Soviet Union has any intention of negotiating."—[Official Report, 12 July 1983; Vol. 45, c. 759.]
As the intermediate nuclear force negotiations began not four years ago, but only 18 months ago, and are only now in a position to make any progress at all, it is obvious that neither the Secretary of State nor his Cabinet colleagues have the slightest intention of entering upon honest negotiation.
According to page 20 of the White Paper, the total number of SS20 launchers deployed throughout the Soviet Union stands at 351 on latest estimates. The addition of cruise and Pershing missiles to the proposed United Kingdom Trident deployment is equivalent to 500 SS20s, which is a further example of overkill. There is no doubt that the Government are in a small minority. Not even their own supporters are in favour of pushing ahead with Trident. Apart from anything else, the cost is frightening. The Secretary of State, doing what we have seen him do in other Departments, is trying to massage the figures—he is well versed in the practice.
On page 7 of the statement he says:
There has been no change in the estimated cost of the Trident D5 system since last year other than for … general inflation and exchange rate changes. At average 1982–83 prices, the estimate is approximately f7½ billion.


However, the cost was put at £7·5 billion in 1981, although most observers at that time thought it more likely that the true figure was £10 billion. Leaving that aside, how is it possible to discount inflation of about 15 per cent. since those days, together with a fall in the exchange rate from $1·82 in September 1981 to $1·52 and come up with the same figure as in September 1981? Only the Secretary of State knows, and he is not telling us.
There is another cost that is more dangerous and more difficult than that. To pay for Trident, our country's conventional capability will be destroyed. Our real defences are being starved to pay for a nuclear status symbol that nobody would dare to use in any circumstances. What is certain is the high cost of Trident. During the peak years of the Trident programme, it will cost about 10·5 per cent. of all equipment, will be the equivalent of 20 per cent. of new orders, will be 30 per cent. of the Royal Navy's budget and the equivalent of more than 50 per cent. of new orders for Royal Navy equipment. That is the real cost of Trident, and it is not the end of the story.
We have seen the beginnings of further expenditure cuts, as the new Chancellor of the Exchequer gets into the saddle. Those cuts will increase and will bear more and more heavily on the defence budget. The dilemma is not new. It faced the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) when he was Secretary of State for Defence. The House will recall that he wanted both Trident and an effective conventional defence policy. He was not able to get them both. The then Chancellor rightly pointed out that that would be impossible. When the right hon. Gentleman refused to accept that painful truth, he was replaced by Mr. John Nott, as he was then.
Mr. Nott's recipe was to slash the Navy and delay Tornado—one-sided disarmament of the most crucial nature. The Secretary of State has an additional source of expenditure which he has recently increased—fortress Falklands. When the new Chancellor asks for more cuts, where will the Secretary of State make them? What will be first for the axe? There are four choices. There is the protection of the United Kingdom. There is the Navy and its commanding role in the eastern Atlantic. Perhaps it will be the troops in Germany. Or will it be the abandonment of fortress Falklands?
No doubt we shall see a reduction in all those, but in the end it is the crippling expenditure on Trident that will force the Secretary of State's successor to abandon the nuclear status symbol. I say his "successor" because the Secretary of State cannot afford a review as radical as will be required after this White Paper and yet survive in office.
Even the Secretary of State's bitterest critics cannot deny that when it comes to the art of public relations he has a head start over all his colleagues. Indeed, that would appear to be the only reason that he got the job in the first place. Certainly the White Paper requires all the arts of public relations to make it credible, let alone new or radical. We have a right to expect something better.
The Secretary of State succeeded a predecessor, who, by general consent, was the worst defence Minister since Ethelred the Unready and whose own White Paper was characterised by the then—

Mr. Churchill: Cheap and nasty.

Mr. Silkin: Does the hon. Gentleman find that what the then First Sea Lord said about the White Paper—
a con trick and a collection of half truths"—
is also cheap and nasty?
The White Paper is a mere rehash of the last one. It is a pathetic contribution from a pathetic Minister. We deplore the opportunity that has been missed to take a new look at defence in the interests of Britain and of the world. That is why we have tabled the amendment.

Mr. Julian Critchley: The nicest thing that can be said about the speech of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) is that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was happily absent. It would probably have been rather too much for him.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, not only on his appointment but on the introduction of his first White Paper and on having enjoyed a good war. By that, I mean a good election in which the quality of his argument enabled him to defeat, for a time at least, the forces of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. But now his real problems start.
I am convinced that speeches in the House are far too long and I propose to ask only a series of questions of the Minister in the hope that he will respond to at least one or two of them when he replies. I remind him that because of the nature of the debate that will follow his reply this evening he will have a larger audience than he might otherwise have had.
My first question is addressed really to the Foreign Secretary. When will my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and, indeed, the Foreign Secretary, visit Moscow? Throughout the past four to five years the only Conservative Minister to visit Moscow was the Under-Secretary of State, now the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind)—a welcome visit it is true, but right at the end of a five-year period. It is important that either the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary sooner or later should pay a visit to Moscow because our lines of communication must be kept open.
I understand that Mr. Ken Livingstone is to visit Moscow. I never believed that Mr. Ken Livingstone existed. I believed that he was invented by the Conservative Central Office. But if it is true that he was not invented by Saatchi and Saatchi and that he is going to Moscow, it is something of a rebuke to us.
I want to direct the following questions specifically to the Minister of State. First, the 3 per cent. additional expenditure entered into in 1978 is to end in April 1986. Will it be extended? Please may we have a response to that tonight?
Secondly, the additional cost of the Falklands will be paid for by the Treasury until April 1986. Will that extra payment be extended?
Thirdly, will our independent nuclear deterrent eventually be included in a START negotiation and, if so, to achieve what Soviet concessions? Will that be verification or inspection? If we are to reduce our independent nuclear deterrent under those circumstances, are we right in assuming that there would be, for example, a reduction in the number of Trident warheads?
Fourthly, will any additional expenditure be allocated to our conventional forces in Europe in order to raise the


nuclear threshold à la General Rogers? Most of the calculations that have been made suggest that over and above the 3 per cent. we need an additional 1 or 2 per cent., depending on which calculation is used. It is all very well for the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford to talk about the need for a conventional defence of Europe when deterrence has failed, yet at the same time to be the spokesman of a party which would reduce our financial expenditure by a third. That is utter hypocrisy.

Mr. Silkin: That is quite untrue. If the hon. Gentleman cares to read our programme, he will see that it is untrue for several reasons. One is that the reduction depends entirely upon NATO's ability to defend itself on a nonnuclear basis.

Mr. Critchley: Such an intervention is not worthy of a response. That failing in the Labour party's policy was one of the real reasons why it failed so lamentably even to hold on to the the residual support that it had had for so long.
My fifth question links up with my point that if we are to raise the threshold in Europe we need to spend more money on conventional equipment and men. Is the best that we can hope for in Europe a policy of no early first use?
In every Parliament in recent yeas we have had a fundamental review of defence policy. I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be faced with a similar problem before long. We have only to look at the threatened reduction in Government spending and the implications for defence—already, we have seen some cuts in defence spending; and sooner or later in the 1980s we shall be faced with very hard choices indeed.
Therefore, my sixth and final question is, faced with such choices, which way will the Secretary of State and the Government go? Would they prefer a NATO-based strategy or a more maritime one, or would they resist the temptation to make hard choices and muddle on by carrying out all sorts of commitments rather less well than we might otherwise do?
I have asked what I think are the important questions in defence. The answers will be left to the Minister of State and many will be waiting in the hope and expectation of receiving at least some glimmer of an answer.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: It is not inappropriate that I should speak for the first time in this House, in a debate on defence. From both a family and a constituency point of view I find it easy to identify with our security forces. It is a tradition in Ulster for people to volunteer to serve in the security forces. There has never been conscription in Ulster, not even during the last war. In my own family, an uncle who was a captain in the Royal Ulster Rifles was killed in Normandy in the last war, and when terrorism reared its head in Northern Ireland it fell to me to join the newest and largest regiment in the British Army—the Ulster Defence Regiment—and to serve with it from its inception on 1 April 1970 until June 1981.
Historically, the main market towns in my constituency —Dungannon and Enniskillen—are garrison towns, the latter having given its name to the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers, now incorporated in the Royal Irish Rangers, and also to the Royal Inniskilling Dragcon Guards.
For reasons that will be apparent to most hon. Members I shall not refer to my immediate predecessor, who did not attend the House, did not hold dear any aspect of British democracy and went to the electorate with a ballot paper in one hand and an Armalite rifle in the other. His absence meant that no one from the constituency ever paid tribute in the House to the last working Member, the late Mr. Frank Maguire. Although I did not share his political ideals and he did not often attend the House, I know that he served his constituents. I hope that I shall serve them equally well. I hope also to contribute to the workings of the House, as have other predecessors such as Colonel Robert Grosvenor, James Hamilton and Harry West.
Having commanded part-time and full-time soldiers in the UDR, and having had under my command soldiers from the Regular Army, I understand and appreciate the sacrifices that we demand of our fighting forces. Only last week four members of the UDR died in a land mine explosion in my constituency. The stress that has lasted for 14 years is difficult to put into words. The excellent discipline of our forces in Northern Ireland is remarkable when one considers what they have had to endure in their efforts, working within the law, to keep and uphold the Queen's peace.
In 14 years, 500,000 regular soldiers have served in Northern Ireland on four-and-a-half-month tours of duty. There are now 8,000 serving members of the UDR out of a total of 32,000 who served at some period since 1970. That means that in Northern Ireland there are now 32,000 members or ex-members of the UDR who are targets for the IRA, 24 hours a day, every day of the year.
Thinking of those soldiers, I am greatly concerned about how the Government intend to cut up the financial cake for the Trident programme, the nuclear programme and our conventional forces. Last week cuts were announced in the defence budget. Where will they fall in relation to those three areas? I believe that the conventional forces are likely to get a smaller share of the cake and to suffer more cuts than any other programme. That makes me sad.
I listened carefully to the Secretary of State, as any new pupil should. He said that defence was based on the principle of deterrence, and he developed various ideas about what might happen in relation to our nuclear programme, finishing with a situation in which nuclear forces were equally balanced. I was sad to hear him say that our conventional forces would be inadequate in relation to potential enemy forces. Sometimes we seem to look too much to the future and to forget the lessons of the past. For almost 40 years we have depended entirely upon our conventional forces in maintaining peace throughout the world, most recently in the Falklands campaign and currently in Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State talked about Government determination and strength. We all subscribe to that, but I am left to ponder the lack of Government determination and strength in the past 13 or 14 years. It was not our conventional forces which let us down in Northern Ireland or in any other theatre. It was the Government alone—a succession of Governments of both parties—who bowed the knee to terrorism during that period. I need not emphasise the point by listing all the mistakes that were made, such as flying terrorists to London and giving special category status to terrorist prisoners.
Irrespective of Trident and the nuclear programme, if we cannot defend our own frontiers effectively, how on


earth can we hope to contribute to world peace? Does the Minister realise that there are no firm patrol bases left in the west of my constituency? They have been removed for a variety of alleged reasons, but the real reason is clearly that money can be saved by not keeping troops in a fixed position to defend the frontier with Eire where the terrorists cross. It is the equivalent of asking troops in the first world war to leave the front line trenches at night and come back in the morning hoping that the enemy has done nothing in the interim.
My constituency badly needs more firm patrol bases close to the frontier. Their absence puts enormous pressure on the security forces. The dread that that absence inflicts on the community is greater still. Wives, daughters and mothers sit in their homes at night wondering whether their husbands, sons or fathers will return safe, having successfully avoided marauding bands of IRA raiders.
Expenditure is important to our forces in Northern Ireland. What a difference just one small increase in the number of helicopters deployed against the terrorists would make. It is generally recognised that helicopters are essential in the fight against guerrilla forces. I have personal experience of the difficulty of acquiring helicopter hours to transport my troops around the area that I commanded. Commanders are then left with the choice of sending their soldiers in Land Rovers along dangerous roads or across dangerous countryside where there is inadequate security. They have every chance of driving over a land mine, as happened to four young men last week.
By their courage and discipline, the security forces should have earned the House's support. I beg the Secretary of State to keep our conventional forces, and my hard-pressed constituents, in his mind as he shares out the financial cake. I hope that I have shown my own and my constituency's gratitude to and concern for our armed forces. That is not all that those who elected me would want me to convey to the House on their behalf. They would also want me to convey their loyalty and obedience to the House and their steadfastness to their British heritage. Those members of the UDR with whom I have had the privilege to serve are a living example of that dedication. We ask only that hon. Members and the Government never allow that fact to escape them in their debates and deliberations.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: The House has listened closely and with great interest to a distinguished maiden speech from the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). He is able and articulate. We especially welcome his kind words for the British Army's contribution to the defence of his constituents. His call for helicopters was an updated version of Nelson's endless calls for more frigates. The hon. Gentleman spoke with great sincerity, knowledge and conviction. We look forward to his taking part in many more defence debates. His predecessor made himself famous through his absence; I trust that the hon. Gentleman will make himself famous through his future contributions to our affairs.
The temptation for politicians, realising their lack of knowledge about defence matters, is to speak with great caution. I advise my new hon. Friends not to be unduly

cautious. It was, after all, a general who came up with the famous comment, "There will always be a place on the battlefield for the well-bred horse." I refer, of course, to Field-Marshal Haig.
This year's defence White Paper is to be commended for its style, colour and content. I also draw attention to the calibre of our defence team. The new Secretary of State has shown an astonishing grasp of detail over a highly complex and technical subject in a short time. I cannot help contrasting our team's performance with that of the previous Labour Governments' defence team. Only a few years ago The Times felt moved to draw attention to their lack of ability and chided them for their weak performance.
The Labour party is in hopeless trouble on defence. That was one reason for our election victory. The one-sided gesture of disarmament hangs around the Labour party's neck like an albatross. If it gives it up, it also gives up a number of its general management committees. Labour is divided into three groups. The first is those who genuinely want to improve our conventional forces. They are as rare as hen's teeth in my part of the world. The second group comprises those who wish to cut our conventional forces by reducing defence expenditure in line with that of our allies. The third group contains those who would invite the Girl Guides in tomorrow without a qualm.
The Social Democrats are present in their usual strength. They have a remarkable nuclear policy. I describe it as a policy of wear-out and rust-out. Briefly, one trots out on platforms throughout the country all the arguments in favour of an independent nuclear deterrent and then one day a chap in a white coat with a screwdriver says that the thing is U/S—unserviceable to those who have not done national service—and instantly one trots out all the arguments against Britain having an independent nuclear deterrent.
The threat is ably described in the White Paper. Like all my right hon. and hon. Friends, I fear that the aged leadership in the Kremlin is out of touch with its people and world events. We are sometimes told by the younger generation that it is not arming against the West but has its eyes on China. However, if one examines the capability of its equipment—especially electronics—it is clear that it sees Western Europe as the likely area for action. Communism is for export. It is for insertion even during a period of so-called detente. The Soviet leadership has made it clear that it does not want to use violence, but it is not prepared to allow the lack of it to stand in the way of its political objectives. For most of my lifetime, we have witnessed that violence. I served as a soldier in Berlin when the wall was going up. We have also seen that violence in the snowy wastes of Afghanistan, whence millions of people are now refugees.
What are the Soviet leadership's aims and intentions? Baluchistan perhaps? Or will it be Iran to forestall what the Russians would see as a possible move by the Americans? Will it be Yugoslavia? It is highly likely that the Soviets will attempt to pull that country back into the fold. The sheer weight and intimidating numbers of Soviet conventional forces are a cause for great concern. Professor John Erickson has written:
The near frantic rate of military production as well as naval building suggests something akin to a war tempo".


I draw attention to the wise words of Lord Home who, with minimum rhetoric, achieves maximum effect. He recently said:
War is not inevitable. But the life of the democracies may well hang on whether they have the will to strengthen NATO with conventional arms. And to do so to a point where all temptation is removed from the Soviet High Command to launch a surprise attack and face the West with a fait accompli.
Time allows me to touch on only a handful of topics in the White Paper. Our strategic deterrent contributes an entirely independent centre of decision-making within NATO, and thus greatly strengthens the NATO Alliance. A potential adversary finds it much harder to forecast our likely response. Just in case the Soviets should doubt the total commitment of the United States, surely it is prudent for one European country, totally committed to NATO, to hold a strategic nuclear deterrent. To me, Britain is the obvious candidate.
The NATO decision to deploy cruise missiles in Britain and Europe is one of the most critical decisions of this decade. Deployment will redress the serious imbalance in theatre nuclear weapons. I remind Opposition Members that Britain has been a potential nuclear target for the Soviet Union since that country fiat acquired nuclear weapons, back in the 1950s. It will of course remain a potential nuclear target, whether or not cruise missiles are here.
I turn to the vexed subject that has cropped up so often in these debates, NATO's southern flank, the tropic of Cancer. Defence outside the NATO area could become just as important, if not more important, to NATO in the future. I detect a Maginot line approach. In those days, much money was spent on the Maginot line. Today, much money is spent on the close defence of central Europe. Surely, the military lesson of history is that the flanks are the more likely target than the centre.
The quality and quantity gaps between NATO and the Warsaw pact are closing simultaneously. It is vital that we keep one step ahead of the Soviets in research and development. I therefore welcome what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier. By keeping ahead with our technology, we are making the best use of our limited but highly trained manpower. In particular, we must concentrate on improving our surveillance systems and our precision guided missiles. It has been said, "If you can find it, you can hit it. If you can hit it, you can destroy it."
I should like to say a brief word on another important topic, maritime versus continental. The Secretary of State's predecessor dutifully told us over and again about the disadvantage of adopting the so-called maritime approach. I only hope that the Secretary of State will not set his face like flint—to borrow a phrase—against such an approach in the long run. Over the centuries the Royal Navy has proved our particular and appropriate champion. Since the time of Marlborough we have not liked having a standing army in western Europe.

Mr. Dalyell: I heard the hon. Gentleman give courageous and informed evidence on the BBC's "You the Jury" programme on Saturday night. Does he agree with Lord Lewin that there should be a south Atlantic strategic vantage point for NATO? What does the hon. Gentleman say to the argument that was adduced by the person who called him in witness, my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), that much of the Navy was being taken out of its proper role?

Mr. Townsend: The hon. Gentleman tempts me to make another speech on an entirely different aspect of defence policy. I wanted to quote the words of the Select Committee on Defence, and in particular paragraph 16, which says:
Any sustained and substantial commitment to defend the Falkland Islands will affect the contribution of HMG to NATO, already strained in terms of manpower and equipment. We have pressed the Ministry of Defence to indicate where current and planned deployments have stretched resources and altered the declarations of forces to NATO and we are not completely satisfied by their reassurances. We cannot disguise the fact that there will be substantial problems and that there will be effects on NATO capabilities".
Those words are worth further exploration during this debate. I have always made it clear that we have no alternative but to defend the Falkland Islands at present. However, I do not believe that we should attempt to set up a strategic stronghold for NATO based on the Falkland Islands in the immediate future.
In a troubled and turbulent world, we must have a Government who deal in conciliation from a basis of strength. We have just elected such a Government. Their defence policies should be supported in the interests of peace.

Mr. Gavin Strang: The hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) referred to unilateralists, and to three types of unilateralists in particular. I do not know where I find myself in those types, but in my experience very few supporters of unilateral nuclear disarmament — indeed, a very small fraction — are pacifists. Indeed, the overwhelming majority, including myself, strongly support the defence of this country and are as committed to defending it and our way of life as are Conservative Members and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches who oppose unilateral nuclear disarmament.
I shall not rehash some of the arguments—some of which did no credit to anyone — that were adduced during the general election campaign. Nor shall I take this opportunity to restate the fundamental case, as I see it, for a non-nuclear defence policy. Instead, I shall look at some of the common ground that exists on defence and try to explain to Conservative Members why we are so alarmed about the road down which the Government are taking us on defence.
We all agree on the need to defend this country. I was pleased to see the Government say in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" that the Soviet Union was not planning an immediate attack. Of course not. Equally, of course, we have to be defended against the possibility of any future attack. We know that. However, we must also recognise that we are now in the most dangerous period of human history and that the overriding objective of this Government's policy in foreign affairs and defence—the two are, of course, closely related—should be to seek to avert the ultimate conclusion of the nuclear arms race, a conclusion which is bound to lead to the devastation of civilisation in Europe as we know it. The threat of a nuclear holocaust is very much on the increase.
I know that the Secretary of State for Defence does not want a nuclear war, any more than I do. However, I am appalled at times by the statements that are made by people in high places, who seem to fail to recognise the enormity of nuclear war. I shall give three brief examples. I listened


with great care to the Prime Minister's speech at the Conservative party conference, which was televised live last year. I still remember, as if she said it yesterday, her reference to the two atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan.
The right hon. Lady said:
I want to see nuclear disarmament. I want to see conventional disarmament as well. I remember the atomic bombs that devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I remember, too, the bombs that devastated Coventry and Dresden.
There is no comparison between the nuclear weapons that are now deployed in this country and Europe and their effects, and what happened in Coventry and Dresden.
At the beginning of this year I read an interview with John Mortimer which the retiring permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence gave in The Sunday Times. He said that
people go on and on about nuclear war; millions and millions of people died in the 1914 war, it just took longer to kill them, that's all.
What an incredible statement. How could anyone in that position compare the devastation of nuclear war and its implications, not just for our forces but for our whole society, with what happened in the first world war?
Recently an appalling circular was sent by the scientific research and development branch of the Home Office to the regional civil defence advisers, seeking to discredit the British Medical Association's report on the effect of nuclear weapons. I hope that hon. Members will read that report, because it represents a balanced view of what nuclear war would mean to this country. It concluded that civilised life as we know it, and the human values and ethical standards on which the practice of medicine is based, would cease to exist in vast areas of these islands.
We are terrified by the statements made by people in high places in this Government—even more so in the Reagan Administration—in which they do not seem to realise that nuclear war, as opposed to conventional war, is a wholly different ball game. In the Secretary of State's speech today—and this applies also to the "Statement on the Defence Estimates"—there was no recognition of the present dangerous escalation of nuclear weapons.
The right hon. Gentleman said a lot about deterrence. We all understand the policy of mutually assured destruction and the idea that the Soviet Union will not unleash its nuclear weapons against the West because it fears the consequences of the West unleashing its nuclear weapons against it, but how on earth could the Secretary of State address so many of his remarks to the policy of deterrence without once referring to the real and justified fear that the development of counterforce weapons and of a counterforce strategy undermines deterrence?
Hon. Members must recognise that. It is one thing to deploy nuclear weapons against population centres and to have a policy of mutually assured destruction, but nuclear weapons are now being developed that have the accuracy to take out the other side's nuclear weapons. Thus, the risk of nuclear war becomes much greater, because the other side fears that we will use our nuclear weapons first to take out its weapons, and vice versa.
I am surprised to see the Minister shaking his head. Many men who are much more distinguised in military matters than hon. Members—such as Lord Carver and Lord Zuckerman— share that view. In their hearts of hearts, hon. Members know that a counterforce strategy

represents the most dangerous escalation yet of the nuclear arms race. This country has decided to deploy the Trident 2 D5 weapon system which is specifically designed to be accurate enough to take out Soviet missiles. There is also cruise, which is a counterforce weapon. It is true that the SS20s represent a major advance on the land-based weapons that the Soviet Union has deployed in Europe, but there is hardly any comparison between the next generation of SS20s and the cruise and Pershing missiles, which are much more accurate than the SS20s.
In any consideration of nuclear balance, accuracy must be taken into account. Prominent spokesmen in America and leading experts on nuclear arms will acknowledge that there is a broad balance between the arsenals of the United States of America, NATO and the Soviet Union. The increased fire power and explosive power, and the higher number of megatons that the Soviet Union certainly has by comparison with the West, is at the very least offset by the technological lead of American weapons over those of the Soviet Union.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): The hon. Gentleman does not seem to take into account in his weapon for weapon consideration the fact that the counterforce strategy is fundamental. It is inconceivable that a country should have a counterforce strategy when it cannot take out all the weapons on the other side. A significant number of them are submarine-launched, and thus housed in submarines that cannot readily be discovered.

Mr. Strang: That is a fair point, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the United States of America is going down the road of anti-submarine ballistic warfare. Military planners fear that if all the land-based nuclear weapons were taken out that would substantially reduce the ability to respond. It is important to bear in mind not only the purpose of the weapon, but the fact that the other side knows that a weapon system has a certain capability.
We are appalled by the way in which the Government do not seem to give any lead to those forces in the world who want to end, or at least to reduce, the present risk of a dangerous escalation in the nuclear arms race. In the White Paper there is an interesting section on a number of nuclear disarmament initiatives. I was interested to read those passages in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" which have a blue background and which are described as outlining the Government's thinking on important general issues. I could not help but feel that the view expressed was more that of the Conservative party than the more balanced view that may exist on some of these issues in the Ministry of Defence.
The comments on the various initiatives proposed on nuclear disarmament make very sad reading. No one is suggesting that the nuclear freeze is an end in itself. However, many people in Britain, Europe, the United States of America and elsewhere suggest that it would be a useful starting point. Of course it does not solve anything, but it would be a useful beginning if we were to agree to freeze the development and deployment of additional nuclear weapons.
Of course it is true that the Russians have more land-based theatre nuclear weapons, but the overall balance is broadly equal between the Soviet Union and the United States of America. Therefore, it is reasonable to put


forward that proposition as a tentative stepping stone towards securing real negotiations and reductions in nuclear arsenals.
The next item on the Government's list is the "no first use" of nuclear weapons. That is very important. The document discusses the new technology developed, in particular, in the United States of America, which will enhance the conventional capability of NATO forces, and enable us better to resist a conventional Soviet attack, but, depressingly, it says that if such weapons were developed and deployed there would not be any alteration in the policy of a flexible response. I understand that to mean that there is no question of the Government conceding that NATO will abandon its policy to be the first to use nuclear weapons. That is a deplorable state of affairs. One of the Government's overriding objectives should be to enable NATO, as quickly as possible, to respond positively to the Soviet Union's undertaking that it will not be the first to use nuclear weapons.
Of course, that is not an end in itself, but it would represent a great step forward. The Secretary of State says that he would like a policy of not being the first to use any weapon, but that fails to recognise the enormity of the gulf between the conventional and nuclear weapons. We hope that there will never be another conventional war in Europe, or another war in which Britain is involved. However, at present we do not have a chance of avoiding a war that will automatically lead to a nuclear holocaust and to the total devastation of these islands.
Time does not allow me to go through all the initiatives that I have in mind, but the White Paper refers to nuclear-free zones. Surely the arguments against such zones are appalling. Of course they are not an end in themselves, but if all the battlefield nuclear weapons were removed from central Europe, and if no nuclear weapons were deployed both east and west of the divide, it would represent a great advance. However, the Government are just not interested. Their record at the United Nations is terrible. On occasions only two countries out of more than 100 —Britain and the United States of America—have voted against every initiative to halt the terrifying escalation of the nuclear arms race.

Mr. Churchill: Surely the hon. Gentleman would be the first to recognise that if we were to agree to such a nuclear-free zone it would not have any relevance, because nuclear missiles can be fired into that zone from outside, and even from behind the Urals. If the SS20s were moved back that far, they could still strike with impunity at any point in western Europe. That is why it is so important to achieve a reduction in those weapon systems, instead of making absurd geographical no-go area.

Mr. Strang: That is a point that the Government make. Of course I want to see a reduction in those weapons. However, at the very minimum I should like there to be agreement on a nuclear-free zone in central Europe, because it would be a confidence-building factor. Of course that is not an end in itself. It is certainly not a substitute for getting rid of Polaris, Trident, MX, SS20s and so on. It will take us some time to get rid of the nuclear weapons belonging to the Soviet Union and the United States of America. The real danger is of a limited nuclear war that will escalate into all-out nuclear war in Europe. Anything that can build confidence between East and West and give those of us who are terrified of the policy that the

Government are pursuing some assurance that something is being done to avert that disaster will be a positive development.
I conclude by quoting, as I did during the defence debate on 1 July 1982, from a memorandum issued by distinguished retired NATO commanders and NATO Ministers. I make no apology for quoting it, because it is important to get it through to hon. Members that the views that we are putting forward are the views not of a small minority, the hundreds of thousands of people who have taken to the streets in Europe against nuclear war, but the views of more and more military people who are becoming more and more concerned about the road our leaders are taking us down in relation to the development of nuclear weapons.
The memorandum said:
The armament logic of former decades which said that a more extensive war potential implied an increase in national security is not valid anymore however. Nowadays, more security can only be obtained through less armament. This reversal is not an easy process, but a feasible one. A decision like this demands as much political wisdom and statesmanship, courage and cultivated leadership qualities as did formerly the doctrine of the use of military force in order to maintain national independence, sovereignty and freedom.

Mr. Edward Leigh: It is a great honour to be called today to speak as the representative for the new constituency of Gainsborough and Horncastle.
Eighty per cent. of the constituency was represented in the last Parliament by Sir Marcus Kimball. In the few weeks that I have been in the House I have yet to meet a Member on either side of the House who disliked Sir Marcus. His natural charm and relaxed manner belied his steely determination, as many Opposition promoters of Private Members' Bills know to their cost. About 20 per cent. of my new constituency was represented in the last Parliament by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Mr. Tapsell) to whom I should like to pay tribute. I suspect that I shall never be able to match his economic expertise, but I shall certainly try to match his devotion to constituency work.
I am fortunate indeed to represent about 700 square miles of historic Lindsey in Lincolnshire, stretching from the banks of the River Trent across the fertile Lincolnshire plain to the wolds, one of the most beautiful parts of England. As well as about 170 parishes the constituency contains four towns—Gainsborough, which has been an industrial town and port for centuries, the racing town of Market Rasen—I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) is aware of the existence of the racing town of Market Rasen — the ancient Roman town of Caistor and the lovely market town of Horncastle. All those towns are heavily dependent on agriculture, a subject in which I intend to take great interest during this Parliament.
But Lincolnshire is known for something else. All over the county lie the airfields—many of them now disused —of RAF Bomber Command. It was a moving moment for me when I came across a memorial at one of the airfields which said simply this:
Royal Air Force Wickenby No. 1 Group Bomber Command 1942–1945. In memory of 1,080 men of 12 and 626 Squadrons who gave their lives on operations from this airfield in the offensive against Germany and the liberation of occupied Europe. Per Ardua Ad Astra.


It is a sobering thought for people of my generation who were born not only after the war but in the second half of this century that on some nights during the war more men failed to return to Lincolnshire from one raid over Germany than were killed during the entire Falklands war. I should like to pay tribute to those men.
Of course, during the 1930s many of those men were debating these issues as we are debating them today. Many of my generation are as concerned as young people were concerned in the 1930s about what they see as a continuous accumulation of weapons of mass destruction. But I believe that in the past two years my generation has again relearned the history of our times and has once again concluded that the peace movement is not that; it is the disarmament movement. As Mr. Churchill said on 19 March 1936:
False ideas have been spread about the country that disarmament means peace.
Disarmament does not mean peace. Appeasement, as Harold Macmillan said, is the father of war.
In a few months we shall celebrate an important anniversary. Fifty years ago the historic East Fulham by-election took place in which a Conservative pro-defence spokesman was defeated by a disarmer. Indeed, he lost a 14,500 majority. During that campaign the then leader of the Labour party, Mr. George Lansbury, said that if he were dictator he would
close every recruiting station, disband the Army, dismantle the Navy and dismiss the Air Force.
The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) did not go quite as far as that, but if his policies had been carried, if the British electorate had been so foolish as to accept them as it accepted the policies of George Lansbury in 1933, peace might indeed have been put at risk.
Is it not strange that the right hon. Gentleman has learned so little and forgotten so much? Has he forgotten his own words, written under the name of Cato in "Guilty Men" published in 1940, when he wrote:
The Labour Party went through all the antic motions of resisting militarism. This consisted of adopting pretty well every half-baked disarmament proposition and annually voting against the Service estimates. Individuals and even groups of fools and fanatics were either for peace at any price or war without weapons.
Has the right hon. Gentleman learned nothing? Has he forgotten everything? I hope for the sake of the future of our nation that the Labour party will heed the words not of its official defence spokesman here today but of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). Writing this week in that organ of the "Tory gutter press" The Guardian, he said:
If we are to respect and trust the people we must begin to listen to their opinions on the policy which lost us most votes at the last election—defence and disarmament.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was telling the truth, that the defence policies of the Labour party played a significant part in losing it the election. I agree with the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) that
unilateralism as an issue is dead
I suspect that as those right hon. Gentlemen go to bed tonight they may think, "Who will rid us of the pestilential priest of CND?"
Those of us who played some small role in ensuring that CND's arguments were defeated can now turn to more interesting subjects. One topic raised in that significant

debate of the Church of England Synod caused concern to many. Men of sober mind accept the need for deterrence, given the fact that these weapons cannot be disinvented, but there is genuine concern about our policy of first use which I accept is necessitated by the discrepancy in conventional forces in Europe. That is not denied. That discrepancy is highlighted again and again in the statement. While I do not call for the dismantling of the British Army of the Rhine, which I accept is a necessary trip-wire, I believe that it is unlikely that the 50,000 men of that army could have any more impact on the outcome of a continental battle fought by 2 million or more men than did their forebears of British Expeditionary Forces in 1914 and 1940. If we are to strengthen the conventional deterrent, we must strengthen those aspects where we are traditionally strongest — the defence of the United Kingdom home base, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is not here. He drew an interesting scenario when he asked what would happen if the Continent was overrun by a successful Soviet conventional attack. Would the Prime Minister then try to turn back or resist the attack by unleashing a nuclear holocaust? He was right to say that it is unlikely that the Prime Minister would press the button. However, I take issue with him, because if we did not have an independent nuclear deterrent, could not the Soviets demand our surrender in exactly the way that the Americans demanded the surrender of Japan in 1945—because they possessed weapons that we did not possess? The right hon. Gentleman's logic is at fault. Let us act where we are strongest. Let us not fall into the trap that we fell into in 1914 and 1945, of weakening our home defences.
I realise that those pitfalls will be apparent to Ministers. I know that they are committed to the preservation of a word that is perhaps the most abused in the English language, which the Kremlin defines as being attainable only by uniformity, but which we have always sought to sustain by encouraging all nations in Europe to follow their own destinies. That word is "peace". I am confident that the statement will make peace more probable.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I congratulate the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) on his maiden speech. I have no doubt that his lyrical description of his constituency will stand him in good stead. I did not agree with everything that he said, but it would be unusual to do so. He made his arguments with clarity, cogency and force. He is obviously a student of history. This place welcomes forthright views, and their being made in an articulate manner. We all wish him well and look forward to hearing from him again.
I pay a brief tribute to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), who has temporarily departed, both on his brevity which was quite admirable, and on the series of extremely perceptive questions that he asked. He demonstrated that even in an age of all sorts of devilish weaponry, the rapier can still be extremely effective.
I shall pick up only one of his questions. He asked when the Prime Minister would visit Moscow. That is a good question. It is bad that the Government have allowed a whole Parliament to slip by without making any effort to enter into direct dialogue with the Soviet Union. I hope


that that question, together with the hon. Gentleman's other questions, will be answered when the Minister replies to the debate tomorrow evening.
The hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend), who has also departed, suggested that the general election resoundingly vindicated the Government's defence policy. That argument has been made by other hon. Members and not only in today's debate. I find it a little bizarre. It is not borne out by the election results, in which the Government lost 750,000 votes, nor reflected in the continuing and widespread anxiety, which goes well beyond those active in the so-called peace movement, that we are at a critical phase in the relationship between East and West when, against all reason and sense, a further dangerous and costly escalation—especially in nuclear arrnouries—may well take place.
The INF talks in Geneva are of special significance, and I wish to relate most of my remarks to them. Their outcome has consequences across the whole area of defence and may determine the nature of East-West relations for a decade. If they fail, there will be an increase in East-West tension and, almost certainly, an acceleration of the arms race. Mr. Andropov's remarks to Chancellor Kohl about palisades of missiles sent a shiver down my spine.
If, on the other hand, the talks succeed—the walk-in-the-woods informal accord to which Foreign Minister Genscher referred yesterday shows that the difference between the two sides is not really all that great— it could well open the way for a much calmer period, in which the relationship between the two major world systems could be better managed and with progress more likely in SALT.
The Liberal party's major criticism of the Government is that, far from bending every effort to achieve an agreement by using all our influence — if necessary, toughly—with the United States, we appear to go along willy-nilly with almost anything that President Reagan says. Why? That we are in the EC does not mean that we go along willy-nilly with everything that our partners there say.
The Labour party made the mistake of saying that under no circumstances would it deploy cruise. That would take the pressure off the Russians to make concessions. The Government proceed in the opposite direction. The Queen's Speech showed a change in their approach. It was not a question of cruise being deployed only if the Geneva conference failed, but that it would be deployed in any event and the number would depend on the outcome at Geneva. In other words, no matter how hawkish or negative the Americans may be, or how unwilling to reach any compromise, we will go along with them. That is neither an independent defence policy, such as the Government claim they have, nor a sensible way to exert influence.
The Prime Minister is known to be a tough, hard and resilient lady. She also believes that she has influence. In such a position she should be saying to the Americans that, unless they are more forthcoming and show clearly that they are prepared to make a real effort to break out of the detailed technical exchange that has dominated Geneva — about balance and notional balance, when there is already a vast overkill capacity—we shall not deploy. We must use our influence effectively.
We already know that the Russians would settle for no cruise, no Pershings and probably 162 SS20s. That is the

Andropov offer. The difference between us is, therefore, 162 missiles and 496 warheads, which is less than 2 per cent. of the combined nuclear stockpile of the super powers. Surely it must be possible to bridge so narrow a gap? If we made it plain to the United States that the Government would not find it possible to deploy cruise in Britain unless America showed much greater flexibility, the chances of success in Geneva would be that much greater.
The Liberal party has long opposed Polaris, but it exists. It therefore makes sense that it should be taken account of in the negotiations. Yet the Government refuse to allow the negotiators at the INF talks or START to do so. Given that Polaris is now assigned to NATO, targeted and deployed by the supreme allied commander, why not? At the Vienna talks on conventional arms reductions there is already an arrangement whereby France, although not in NATO, is taken account of. In other words, both sides make an informal calculation by which 50,000 troops are added to the Western side of the balance to take account of France, even though it is not formally in NATO.
Why cannot a similar informal, sensible arrangement be made about Polaris, and indeed, the French force de frappe? Perhaps it is because of the Government's determination to proceed with Trident. If allowance is to be made for the 192 Polaris warheads now, what about the 896 Trident warheads tomorrow? Much of the anti-Trident argument has centred on cost and relevance to our general defence posture. Perhaps too little has been said about the escalation that it will inevitably produce.
These are profoundly important areas where we believe that Government policy is reducing the chance of agreement at Geneva, or, at the lowest, not contributing to it positively. Our view is that, given that this country is limited in what it can do—rightly referred to by the Secretary of State in his opening remarks— it should make its priority, on the one hand, to use its influence positively in NATO, as I have indicated, and, on the other, to make the most constructive contribution possible to the effective defence of the Alliance.
In our view, that can most effectively be done by a greater concentration on conventional weapons, always taking account of what is going on at Vienna. It is wrong to proceed on a policy that bases the defence of western Europe on the threat of first use of nuclear weapons. It is a weak, not a strong, policy because it exposes one, and is dangerous for that reason. It should be our policy to work within NATO so that any conventional attack by the Soviet Union could be deterred by conventional means, thus significantly raising the nuclear threshold. The Government's rigid opposition to the idea of a battlefield nuclear weapon-free zone in the central front is mistaken, taking into account the remarks in the exchange between the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) and the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill).
The right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) made it clear that the cancellation of Trident would release considerable resources which would enable us to develop our conventional forces more effectively. That, in our view, is the proper priority for this country in maintaining a viable defence.
The Secretary of State referred vigorously — he generally refers to matters vigorously, but on this he was particularly vigorous — to the Navy. He gave the impression that no Government in recorded history had done so well by the Navy as the present Administration.


He should be reminded that it is the view of no less a person than Admiral of the Fleet Lord Hill-Norton that we now fall far short of the requirements of the supreme allied commander, Atlantic. Likewise the view of Sir Anthony Griffin, controller of the navy between 1971 and 1975, that if one projects the position, particularly on escort vessels, we could be down to 40 by 1990. In general, it is the view of many well-informed people that the Navy is well under strength now and that the situation will worsen.
The Secretary of State also referred to the industrial impact of defence spending and said that 95 per cent. of contracts were spent in this country. Perhaps the Minister, when he replies, will comment on NATO defence procurement, an issue which has been discussed for long enough, though we do not seem to have made any progress in that area. I am all in favour of competition, but competition in NATO often produces duplication and waste with weapons systems. We could do far more by way of co-operation.

Mr. Robert Atkins: I am glad that at last the question of procurement has been brought into the debate. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that while all are in favour of the standardisation of equipment, everybody wants that standardisation to be on his equipment? How would he suggest that we resolve that difficulty?

Mr. Johnston: That is right, and the only way to resolve it is by negotiating a method by which one country does one thing and another does another; there must be a sharing-out because if individual countries feel that one or other is given preference, the system will not work.
When the Secretary of State dealt with the spread of arms he talked of the arms makers and others as if they were caught up in some ineluctable process. That was most depressing because the right hon. Gentleman seemed to believe that there was no means of introducing any kind of arms control, and he certainly was not going to do anything about it. Not much has been done about it. Indeed, since Herr Genscher's minimal proposition for a register at the United Nations, there has been no progress. Have Her Majesty's Government a view on whether it is possible to regulate in any way the sale of arms, which causes misery in many parts of the world, particularly in the underdeveloped new countries to which the Secretary of State referred?
We propose to vote tomorrow against the statement. We shall do so because we do not agree that the Government's policy either gives the country the maximum of security which it should or gives sufficient emphasis to progressing arms reduction negotiations. We accept that the Russians are aggressive — I am no defender of the Communist system—and we accept that NATO must have a nuclear deterrent and that, as a loyal member of NATO, we must be prepared to make a contribution to it. But we do not see any sense in the buildup of nuclear overkill, which is what we are seeing now, nor in the inadequate priority given to our overstretched conventional forces.
And we believe that the Geneva talks can, indeed must, succeed.

Mrs. Anna McCurley: I am grateful for this opportunity to make my maiden speech in such an important debate on a subject of great interest and relevance to my constituents.
I am proud to represent the new constituency of Renfrew, West and Inverclyde, which has come about as a result of boundary changes and is, in effect, the altered former constituency of Renfrewshire, West. The boroughs of Renfrew and Johnston have been excluded and a small part of Greenock has been included.
Normally when one pays tribute to the former Member for a constituency one is speaking of a person who has been despatched from this House. In this case it is my privilege to acknowledge his virtues in his temporary absence, for the man who previously represented the bulk of my seat is the present hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan). The electorate did not exactly turn out for me in droves, but the hon. Member for Paisley, South showed consummate political nous by moving out when I decided to move in. He is remembered in the constituency as an excellent constituency Member, a kind man and dedicated. If he did not always command respect for his political views, he certainly won it on a personal basis. He is an acknowledged expert on agriculture, and I wish him every success in his new fields or pastures in Paisley, though he will have to go a long way before he finds farms there.
A small portion of the new constituency of Renfrew, West and Inverclyde was represented in the previous Parliament by Dr. Dickson Mabon, who was a distinguished Member. Friends and colleagues alike remember him with affection and respect. The former Members who represented areas within the new constituency were much respected and I have a great tradition to follow.
In the inter-war period Scrymgeour Wedderburn served in this place, and he served his constituents well. He became the Earl of Dundee and moved to another place. His recent death has saddened all those who knew him.
After the war Jack Maclay represented the constituency. He is known in another place as Viscount Muirshiel. He served as the Secretary of State for Scotland as well as being a representative of Renfrewshire in the 1950s and 1960s. He was a distinguished and much loved Secretary of State for Scotland. He carried the title of National Liberal and Conservative. Liberal Members may do well to consider that proper alliance when they are making their frequent pacts with other parties.
When I was studying the information on the background of my constituency, I found that I was representing a portion of Renfrewshire for the second time around. My former regional seat of Pollokshaws, which is now a part of Glasgow, was historically a Renfrewshire borough. Renfrew, West and Inverclyde is a beautiful constituency. It is not rugged like some areas in the north of Scotland; its undulations are gentle and they roll down to the Forth of Clyde. All gazetteers euphemistically describe its climate as variable and the many tourists describe it in other ways less euphemistically.
The industry in the area that I represent is limited. There are small industrial estates, but the bulk of the industry is on the periphery of the constituency, and it is there that my constituents work as well as in the major towns of Glasgow and Paisley. The principal industry


within the constituency is agriculture, and the major portion of it is devoted to dairying, followed by sheep, pigs, poultry and some arable land.
The constituency consists of some beautiful villages with rustic industry traditions. These have almost grown out of themselves and have become village towns. There is a need for these towns, as they are virtually, to be supported by stronger infrastructures. I aim to be as assiduous in my attempts to gain these requirements for my constituents as the Member who represented the constituency previously.
The major towns in the constituency are Gourock and Greenock, representing a major area in Scotland for tourism. It is an area that we know in the north as "doon the watter." It is from this part of the watter that we take off for many of the islands that are in the Firth of Clyde. Erskine is a new town which is thriving and developing. It has benefited considerably from the introduction of the previous Conservative Government's legislation, which gave council house tenants the right to buy their own homes. Linwood is also in the constituency. It is a town that is known for its problems in the past, including high unemployment. Even there there are signs of recovery.
Defence is of great importance to my constituency in both conventional and nuclear terms. As the crow flies, the constituency is 10 km from the Coulport base and less than 5 km from the Polaris base. The royal ordnance factory at Bishopton is a major employer in my constituency. It is the largest producer of propellants for use in gun ammunition, rockets and guided weapons in the United Kingdom. It is the sole United Kingdom manufacturer of combustible charge containers. It is sad that trade union prejudices made it difficult to convirce the work force within RAF Bishopton that their prospects need not and would not be jeopardised by the application of some commercial principles to the running of the works.
The livelihood of many of my constituents is dependent on the retention of shipyards, especially in Greenock. There is a need for orders, especially of conventional submarines. Such orders are needed urgently, especially for the type 2400 submarines, which I believe are in the pipeline.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider an acceleration of the programme for spending on conventional submarines and to consider giving a fair share of the contracts to my constituency. I ask also for a fair share of the maintenance work which the yards are competent to undertake. The constituency needs the work, for it is an area of high unemployment.
There are many who sit on the Opposition Benches who find themselves in a dilemma when the argument is raised of whether we should employ people in the defence industry. The industry is a major employer in my constituency and I have no qualms about it, and nor do my constituents, who deal in realities.
My constituents also deal with realities in a wider sphere and, like them, I welcome the Government's increased expenditure on both conventional and nuclear forces. I believe that the Government have got their priorities right in maintaining the deterrent principle, safeguarding national security and upholding our commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. That Alliance would be severely weakened without Britain's support, for strategically Britain's role is vital to the defence of the West. It is therefore essential to have the most efficient, up-to-date and effective system that we

can afford to achieve that sound deterrence. I welcome especially the Government's move to go ahead with the Trident 2-D5 system.
Defence was a key issue in the election, especially in my constituency. I believe that I was elected on the strength of the arguments on defence which were advanced by myself on behalf of the Conservative party. I repudiated the claims of the CND and all the followers of one-sided disarmament, and I believe that that assisted me in my efforts to be elected. In general, the British electorate saw off the principles advocated by the CND and the unilateralists. It lent its support to the Government's defence strategy and it is continuing to support what the Government are doing. Indeed, it is urging the Government to continue along the same lines. People are prepared to pay for the independent nuclear deterrent. The clear-cut deterrent principle is widely accepted, especially in my constituency. I am happy to see the Government retain their commitment to the preservation of peace through their independent deterrent.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Of the second part of the maiden speech by the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley), Shakespeare would have said, "now thrive the armourers". She will not expect me either to examine or to challenge her on the contents of the second part of her speech. The first part was witty and felicitous. She paid a handsome and generous tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) for the work he did in 80 per cent. of her constituency. She spoke movingly of villages, which she and I as fellow Scots know well, that need infrastructure and support and that form one of the most beautiful parts of our island.
I was especially glad that she paid tribute not only to an excellent Labour Member, but to her Conservative predecessor, Jack Maclay, now Lord Muirshiel. He was Secretary of State for Scotland when I first entered Parliament after a by-election, and I have a guilty conscience about him. A previous Speaker, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, revealed to me that it was at the by-election in the rolling countryside of West Lothian that the Conservatives, having gained about 18,000 votes in 1959, lost their deposit. That lost deposit prompted Harold Macmillan in the "night of the long knives" in July 1962 to sack half of his Cabinet. As Harold Wilson rightly said, he sacked the wrong half. Along with Selwyn Lloyd Jack Maclay was sacked, and no one could have been kinder or less bitter about it. Since then, as Lord Muirshiel, he has played a considerable part in Scottish life and worked for good causes. As a council member of the National Trust for Scotland and in other capacities for organisations such as the Historic Buildings Council my family and I know of the sterling work that Jack Maclay has done and I am glad that the hon. Lady mentioned him in her maiden speech.
I was also glad that the hon. Lady paid tribute to Lord Dundee, a friendly man known to many of us who died a fortnight ago. Opposition Members will raise arguments about the substance of her maiden speech, but I congratulate her warmly on its felicity.
Last Saturday evening at 10.15 on the BBC's "You the Jury" programme, which was extremely capably handled by my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumrock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), one of the witnesses called by the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker)


said that so long as the Argentines know that there are nuclear submarines in the south Atlantic they will not invade. As that witness was none other than Admiral of the Fleet, Lord Lewin, hon. Members can drop the pretence that we do not discuss the deployment of nuclear submarines, and we can safely assume that those vessels are in the Falklands area. I emphasise that Lord Lewin raised the subject on that occasion, last week, and not me. Just as we are indebted to him for confirming on the BBC on 30 January that there was no difficulty in communication between Northwood and Conqueror during the period when the Belgrano was sunk, so we are indebted to him for that information, about which Ministers are coy. [Interruption.] That information came from the former Chief of the Defence Staff.
The presence of nuclear submarines opens a can of worms. Either the submarines are hunter-killers of the Conqueror type or they are Polaris "R" class. I hope to heaven that they are the former. If we assume the lesser of the two evils, that presents problems for our defence strategy. Britain has 12 hunter-killer submarines, nine of which are operational at any one time. The reference to that is annex C at page 39 of the defence statement. At any point in time at least three are undergoing refit, as are Conqueror, Churchill and Sovereign at present. One at least will be in transit to or from the Falkland Islands. Simple arithmetic suggests—Ministers can correct me if I am wrong—that at least three out of the nine available submarines are bottled up in support of fortress Falklands, leaving only six hunter-killer submarines for NATO.
What does that mean for our NATO commitment? If it is said that NATO does not need more than six British hunter-killer submarines, why did we build them at such great expense for a requirement that apparently does not exist? Those vessels are extremely expensive. Am I wrong to suggest that the commitment—

Mr. Robert Atkins: Probably.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman says "Probably", but let Ministers say it. I shall give way on this important issue to those who are seriously interested in defence. Am I wrong to suggest that only six British hunter-killer submarines are available to NATO? As there is no intervention, I shall assume that my suggestion is not wide of the mark, so we can establish that we have a much smaller force of nuclear submarines available to NATO than was deemed necessary.
Let us have none of the cant about how vital the south Atlantic is as a strategic area. When Lord Lewin was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley whether he had asked for a Falklands base before April 1982, he pleaded that it was privileged information. All the talk of defending 300 million tonnes of shipping round the cape — not Cape Horn, but the Cape of Good Hope—is rationalising after the event. We must examine the map. The Falklands are 3,500 miles from the Cape of Good Hope, and I do not understand why the former Chief of Defence Staff chose last Saturday night on the BBC to say that the Falklands would be a good base from which to defend the 150 million tonnes of oil that are carried round the Cape of Good Hope. That is rationalisation ex post facto. If we wished to defend shipping round the Cape of Good Hope, we would do it from the base on Ascension Island, not from the Falklands.
I have come to believe—it cannot be proved—that Ascension Island was being prepared for the Falklands crisis in February 1982, weeks before most hon. Members had heard of a task force. It has been said time and again that it is a miracle that Nimrods could operate so quickly from Ascension Island. I am sceptical about military miracles, which are usually the result of careful planning. There has been no answer to the charge that the Nimrods could not have operated so quickly out of Ascension Island unless there had been careful preparation for such an eventuality long before 31 March, which the House will remember is the date on which, as the Prime Minister told us from the Dispatch Box on 26 October, the Falkland Islands crisis came out of the blue. If I am wrong about Ascension—

Mr. Robert Atkins: The hon. Gentleman is.

Mr. Dalyell: I did not see who said that. I do not think that that comment came from the Front Bench. [Interruption.] I hear that it came from the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins). He may have better information than the Government Front Bench, but I am agog to hear what the Secretary of State for Defence and other Ministers have to say about this, whatever the hon. Gentleman says.
I have to look at the other eventuality. I am not absolutely persuaded that we are just talking about hunter-killer submarines. The second submarine interpretation of Lord Lewin is less likely, thank goodness, but more sinister. Could he have known that we have R class Polaris-carrying submarines down there? In the unpleasant period between the loss of the Sheffield and the landing at San Carlos, an R class submarine penetrated at 12 deg. south 21 deg. west. That is hundreds of miles south-west of Ascension, in range of cities such as Cordoba and out of range of the Soviet Union.
People may ask how I know that. How did I know that the Conqueror was following the Belgrano for over 30 hours? I made that assertion time and again in the House. It was only in the second week of May that, lo and behold, it was substantiated by Commander Christopher Wreford Brown DSO, the commander of Conqueror. I was right that time, and I think that I am not far wrong on this occasion.
I refer to the February edition of Military History. In it is a column from Askari's notebook. Neither Military History nor the columnist Askari is a great Socialist or Left winger, as far as I know, on nuclear disarmament or anything of that kind. Just listen to what Askari writes. I shall have to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) to read the quotation because the light is shining on my glasses.

Mr. Mark Fisher: Askari writes:
Still on the Falklands I fear. An informant told me that there was a ship attached to the Task Force which, apart from various supplies, ammunition etc. was carrying Polaris missiles, under a tarpaulin on the deck. He saw this with his own eyes. I know the name of the ship too which does not appear anywhere on the list of those vessels attached to the fleet. Very curious. What would have happened if that one had been blown up and what use could Polaris missiles be down there? To fire directly at Argentina I suppose.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I shall take that as an intervention.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend has done me the courtesy of reading that out. My simple question is: is Askari talking rubbish? If he is, he ought to be nailed, and the magazine ought to be nailed and contradicted. I hope that the Minister will comment on that when he replies.
The Secretary of State has said that the naval commitments to fortress Falklands are not causing other than minor problems in maintaining Britain's overall defence posture. I am told by my friend Dr. Paul Rogers in Bradford, who has studied these matters in great detail, that
In the past 8 months, Britain has maintained a force of at least five, and on occasions up to ten, destroyers and frigates in the South Atlantic, out of a total force of 53 such ships in the Royal Navy.
Ships undertake five month deployments, of which slightly less than two months is accounted for by passage to and from the Falklands. For every ship actually on patrol, another ship will be in passage to or from the patrol area, working up for deployment or replenishing after deployment.
Moreover, at any one time, the full fleet of 53 ships is not available for deployment. Many forms of maintenance and minor refits will decrease overall operational availability. It is commonly assumed that a navy is effective if it can maintain two-thirds of its ships operationally available. For the purposes of this analysis, we assume the much more favourable estimate of 80 per cent. operational availability for the Royal Navy.
Does the Minister disagree in any way with those assumptions? Apparently he does not so we can go on. Dr. Rogers states:
If an average of six destroyers and frigates are on station in the South Atlantic at all times, twelve ships will be committed to that deployment out of an operationally available total of, at the most, 43 ships.
Even at a conservative estimate, it therefore follows that over 25 per cent. of the entire destroyer and frigate fleet of the Royal Navy is permanently committed to Fortress Falklands
One quarter of the fleet that was supposed to be our major contribution to NATO in the north Atlantic is now committed in the south Atlantic. Ministers cannot have it both ways. Either it was unnecessary to have such a large fleet in the first place, in which case we should be told that it was not an integral part of NATO, or we are not making the contribution that was thought to be necessary and is still apparently necessary to NATO. It is either one or the other. I look forward to the Minister saying which it is.

Dr. Rogers states further:
It should be added that destroyers and frigates comprise the great majority of the Navy's ocean-going fleet of major surface units … The most notable example of Falklands naval deployments of recent months occurred in the latter part of May 1983. At that time, the Royal Navy had the following ships on station:

Type 42 destroyers

Birmingham
Cardiff
Exeter
Southampton

Type 21 frigates

Active

Type 22 frigates

Broadsword
Brilliant

Leander frigates

Achilles
Penelope

Rothesay frigate

Falmouth".

Then there was also the armed patrol ship, our old friend Endurance. Dr. Rogers states:
Actual deployments in the South Atlantic thus included four out of the Royal Navy's nine modern destroyers, the Type 42, and two out of the four most recent frigates, the Type 22 …The distortion in favour of recently built warships is especially

striking. The Royal Navy has destroyers and frigates which vary greatly in age and capabilities. In terms of air defence, crucial in the Falklands context, the navy has just ten destroyers equipped with the modern Sea Dart long range area defence missile system—nine Type 42s and one Type 82. It also has just six frigates equipped with the modern Sea Wolf short-range point defence missile system — four Type 22s and two modified Leanders.
The conclusion is:
it has been the practice to have at least two Type 42 destroyers with Sea Dart and one frigate with Sea Wolf on station in the South Atlantic. Allowing for time of passage, operational availability, etc., this indicates that nearly half of the navy's Sea Dart destroyer force and over a third of its Sea Wolf frigate force is committed, directly or indirectly, to Fortress Falklands.
If Sea Dart and Sea Wolf, which some of us have seen on HMS Bristol and elsewhere, were considered to be so vital to Britain's contribution to the defence of the West, how is it that we have committed the system in the south Atlantic and apparently that is all right? Serious questions about the defence of this country, even in the Government's terms, arise out of these matters. Dr. Rogers continues:
Thus, not only is Fortress Falklands utilising a large proportion of the navy's destroyers and frigates, but it is using the most modern of these ships. Moreover, many of the remaining ships are 20 to 25 years old and cannot always be considered adequate for NATO purposes.
Do Ministers think that Dr. Rogers is talking poppycock? Do Ministers think that I am misleading the House by giving all this information? Since I listened to George Wigg 21 years ago, I have thought that these are serious occasions and that there ought to be serious discussion of defence issues. I give the Ministers an opportunity to interrupt me if they think that I am wrong or am misleading the House. There is no interruption, so either they are being careful or I am far more accurate than most of those who criticise my arguments on defence would have us believe.

Mr. Roland Boyes: My hon. Friend knows more about it.

Mr. Dalyell: Dr. Rogers states:
In giving evidence to the House of Commons Defence Select Committee earlier this year, MoD officials stated that threat assessments for the Argentine Navy would continue to be made and that British force commitments would change in response to new assessments.
Dr. Rogers refers to the
Argentine rearmament programme, emphasising the major programme of acquisition of modern strike aircraft equipped with stand-off weapons and the re-equipping of the Argentine navy with modern missiles.
This is an urgent matter.
During defence questions I referred to the Otomat, which is a missile with a range of six times that of the M38 Exocet. It has a range of 125 miles. It is made by Matra in France and Oto-Melara in Italy. Contracts for this missile have been placed in Buenos Aires. My right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), who was a member of the Franks committee and formerly a pilot, knows the formidable weapons about which we are talking. Contrary to what has been said by Ministry of Defence officials, they can be married to the wing of an aircraft. We thought that the Exocet was shiplaunched—we discovered to our horror that it can be air-launched. There is, I am told, no great difficultuy about the Otomat being air-launched.
These are the weapons that we must take into account. It is significant that the plans include


the deployment of four sophisticated Meko 3600 H2 frigates equipped with the Aspide anti-aircraft missile and the Franco-Italian long-range Otomat anti-ship missile. Six Meko 1400 corvettes and six Type 1700 submarines are being built or are on order.
These German diesel electric submarines are formidable weapons. Dr. Rogers states:
These additions, together with the planned purchase of a number of fast attack craft, will greatly enhance Argentina's naval capabilities. They must also involve an increase in Britain's commitments to Fortress Falklands. Apart from a probable increase in surface ships, it is implausible to suggest that less than two nuclear-powered attack submarines will be required on station. Allowing for passage, etc, this would involve a commitment of four such submarines. The Royal Navy currently has just nine of these boats operational and they form a crucial component of NATO's North Atlantic forces.
In the face of those considerations, we cannot withdraw from the south Atlantic. However, there is a change in the operational commitment that this country has made in NATO.
I have talked a great deal to Dr. Rogers of Bradford and many others. The conclusion is that fortress Falklands is grossly distorting British naval defence postures by requiring more than 25 per cent. of the destroyer and frigate fleet. Dr. Rogers continues:
The navy already has out-of-area commitments such as the Persian gulf and the Caribbean, and these together with the very much larger and continuing commitment in the South Atlantic, mean that the Royal Navy's commitment to NATO in the North Atlantic is severely curtailed.
It will be even more curtailed if what we read in The Times last week is right, that a major task force is to be sent to the Persian gulf and the far east in a friendly capacity. If those ships are to be sent to the far east, the strain will be that much greater. Dr. Rogers said:
In the normal way, all destroyers and frigates in the Royal Navy are supposed to be committed to NATO.
Since the Royal Navy has a central role in NATO's North Atlantic naval dispositions, this must be permanently damaging to NATO's overall defence posture in that area.
It would be surprising to find senior NATO officers commenting on this remarkable state of affairs in public, as it would clearly be a grave embarrassment to one of NATO's leading member states. However, Admiral Wesley McDonald, NATO's Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic, recently stated that there was a shortfall of 50 destroyers and frigates in the Atlantic alone, with a further shortfall in the Channel area.
Is Admiral Wesley McDonald wrong? Is he panicking? Is he suggesting something that is not serious? I should like an answer. Ministers have efficient Parliamentary Private Secretaries and many experts in the official box. I am the most agreeable man when it comes to giving way. Reading the faces of those whose faces I should not read. I suspect that Admiral Wesley McDonald was not wrong and that there is a crisis within NATO on this issue.
Dr. Rogers concluded:
In summary, Fortress Falklands involves heavy naval commitments. These are likely to increase as Argentine naval rearmament continues and they are likely to remain heavy enough to distort Britain's naval defence posture severely at a time when NATO believes it has inadequate forces in the North Atlantic.
The defence debate is the occasion when facts should be brought out. One quarter of our Navy, which both Front Benches have told us is so important, has a commitment which, 15 months ago, no one would have thought possible. Many people did not know where the Falklands were. Anyone who suggested during any of the previous 20 or so annual defence debates in which I have spoken that one quarter of our Navy should be committed in the

south Atlantic would have been thought barmy or bonkers. Apparently, however, it makes sense now. I do not know what the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) said sotto voce—

Mr. Nicholas Baker: The hon. Gentleman should calm down.

Mr. Dalyell: —but I should like an answer from someone. I am absolutely calm. Sit down, calm down—that is the difficulty. It is the story of my life. I produce all sorts of facts. No one refutes them; all people do is to abuse me. It is a traditional custom. If one cannot answer the case, abuse the wretched herald who brings the news. I am in the position of someone who brings awkward tidings to the Government.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: They used to hang them.

Mr. Dalyell: We shall not return to that. Perhaps it is a good thing from my point of view that they do not hang them these days.
The questions that I have raised were asked by Dr. Rogers, Dr. Malcolm Dando and others who compiled these facts carefully, and who are some of the most careful peace researchers in this country. I am rather careful about where I get my facts from, and I do not take only one source—I have spent a good deal of time checking the other sources. When an hon. Member speaks as much as I do in the House of Commons, many people will talk to him. People telephone me, and not only from outside Whitehall. I have cross-checked and checked again what Dr. Rogers has been saying, and I have found that other experts agree with his facts. They may put slightly different interpretations on them and some may argue that the Falklands are good training for the forces. The hard fact of the matter remains that we gave, right or wrongly, certain commitments to NATO. The House of Commons deserves, in the annual defence debate, some candour from the elected Government about whether we are fulfilling our NATO obligations.

Mr. R. Bonner Pink: I find myself in some difficulty in following the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). He made a powerful supporting speech for an enlarged Navy, but complained that we had too many ships stationed in the Falklands, or going to and from. He also complained about the speed at which the Navy managed to get to the Falklands. Obviously, with the continuing problems of the Falklands, the Ministry of Defence would be foolish not to have contingency plans that it could put into operation at short notice. It is possible that, equally, the Department has plans for bringing those ships back at short notice if they are so needed.
The hon. Gentleman is taking too much notice of, and becoming too obsessed with, the Falklands. As he said, it can be argued that they can be useful training grounds. In the Falklands campaign, apart from numbers, it was largely a matter of morale. I do not wish to provoke the hon. Gentleman in any way, but I remind him that one torpedo from one nuclear submarine destroyed one cruiser, and that was the last that we saw of the Argentine navy in the Falklands.
In general, I support the Government's policy on defence. I support their policy of replacing Polaris by Trident and of maintaining our own independent nuclear


deterrent. Where I part company from the Government is in the method of, and proposals for, financing Trident. Polaris has been financed and paid for out of the general budget of the Ministry of Defence. As I understand it, Trident is to be paid for out of the Navy's share of the defence budget, and nothing that the Minister said today showed otherwise. It is important to remember what the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) said, that whereas in the early days of Trident the expense for the Navy would not be great, as the programme builds up it will take an increasingly large proportion of the Navy's budget, and the Navy is in consequence to be cut down and will suffer in its ordinary service.
I draw the Minister's attention to an Adjournment debate on 5 July initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). It was a useful debate, because it drew the attention of the House to the number of dependent territories for which we are still responsible. The Falklands highlighted our responsibility and our problems in looking after and defending these dependent territories. Some defects and deficiencies in our equipment came to light, but, more important, it became obvious that too much attention in design had been concentrated on the NATO role and not enough on our other and wider role of defending our dependent territories.
Perhaps most important was the fact that the Navy could not provide long-range radar cover because in NATO that is provided by shore-based aircraft. How far have discussions gone between the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence? What discussions have been held? Has agreement been reached on which of the dependent territories are to be defended, and, if they are to be defended, how will they be defended? Is the Ministry of Defence satisfied that the present composition of our forces, in particular of our Navy, is sufficient in size and design to defend those territories? After all, the first line is still the Navy, wherever these territories may be. The Navy has to be the first on the spot, has to provide backup support and protect the convoys of supplies and the Army with all its equipment. However, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow said, the number of our escort vessels is to be reduced from 59 to 50, which does not make sense. If our commitments are not to be reduced, our Navy should not be reduced either. We already have commitments in the Falklands and Belize that tie up ships.
The composition of the fleet — in particular the frigates and the type 23— is important. The defence statement in 1982 said in paragraph 211:
The progress we are making towards the next generation of frigate—the Type 23—reflects our policy of replacing ships rather than undertaking mid-life modernisation. Feasibility studies are well under way, and we expect to finalise the broad design characteristics later this year.
That was 1982, and events in the Falkla -ids have changed things.
The 1983 statement says in paragraph 332:
Design work is now well under way on the Type 23 frigate.
Paragraph 333 goes on to say:
Detailed design work is now well in hand at Yarrows, the lead shipbuilders, and we have employed outside consultants to advise".
We were promised a new, better and cheaper frigate in 1982. At that time it was thought that the first would be ordered in the middle of this decade, in 1985, but from those two statements it does not look as though that is likely. It takes at least three years to build a frigate, so the first frigate cannot be completed before 1988. It will then

have to be worked up and, being a prototype, many adjustments will have to be made in the ship and in future ships of the same class. Therefore, it does not look as though there will be any type 23 frigates active in the fleet until 1990 at the earliest.
What will happen in the meantime? The Government's policy, which is entirely right, is that we should not have mid-term long refits, but should have new ships instead. The present long refit programme finishes in about 1985, so there will be a gap between 1985 and 1990 at the earliest when there will be no long refits and type 23 frigates coming into commission. Is it the Government's intention to fill that gap with type 22 frigates, or will they allow the gap to continue? The remainder of the fleet will become older and its equipment more outdated. Although I agree with the Government's policy, in the short term we should carry our major long refits on some of the existing fleet so that continuity is maintained.
Much emphasis has been placed on the size and the cost of ships and there is continual pressure to make them smaller. At the same time, there is continual pressure to cram more and more equipment into them. Is that sound policy? The Sheffield showed that even with long refits all the equipment cannot be fitted in. There was just not enough room for Sea Wolf. If there had been, the ship would probably have been unstable and capsized. There is no question but that Sheffield was not equipped to save her own life in the Falklands.
Even if the type 23 frigate is up to date when it is designed, new equipment will continually be corning forward which the Government will want. Would it not be a better policy to increase the size of the ships to allow for that extra equipment when it becomes available? On a yacht the cost of a hull used to be a third of the total cost of the boat. I believe that on a naval warship the cost of the hull is only 10 per cent. Therefore, a comparatively large increase in the size of the ship would mean a comparatively small increase in its cost. If a warship were costed out completely, the cost of the crew would far outweigh the cost of the vessel.
I agree with the hon. Member for Linlithgow that the Navy is inadequate for its present commitments. I appeal to the Minister not to cut the Navy, but to increase it; to spread the cost of Trident over the whole of the defence budget and not just over the navy's share. I support the Government's policy of maintaining an independent nuclear deterrent and strong conventional arms.

Mr. Roland Boyes: Conservative Members have said two things with which I disagree. First, they said that unilateralism was dead. I assure them that unilateralism and its supporters are far from dead. The cry for it will continue to grow until we set an example to all the powers and make them realise that the world will be safer without nuclear weapons.
Secondly, it was said that the Labour party's policy was discredited at the election. The distorted policy —distorted by the Blonde Bombshell and his friends in the media—may have been discredited, but our policies will stand the test of time. I assure Conservative Members that when the next election comes we shall fight on similar policies and win.
Nuclear war can start in two ways. It can start by design, in several ways. There is the concept of a limited theatre nuclear war in Europe — the war game


calculations in the Pentagon in which people believe that they can make the first strike and that fewer people will die on one side than on the other. It can start because of proliferation. Hon. Members today have concentrated on the weapons of the United States and the Soviet Union, but we must not forget that many other powers are now obtaining nuclear weapons or the capability to manufacture them.
It was interesting that the Secretary of State concentrated on the threat from the Soviet Union. I am certainly no supporter of the way in which the Soviet Union is run, but I remember that it fought on our side in the war and sacrificed 20 million people so that hon. Members could still have a Parliament in Britain in which to speak. The only time that we have been attacked in those terms is by the Argentines. According to the distinguished writer Donald Poneman—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will speak about such matters at length—the Argentines are now nearing completion of a plutonium reprocessing plant. They have the technology for a large research reactor and soon they will have the capability to turn out a nuclear weapon each year. If you add that to the analyses of my hon. Friends, it shows what kind of world we are beginning to live in.
If nuclear weapons are good for the big powers, they must be good for other powers. If it is good for us to have them, every other country in the world must have nuclear weapons to make it a safer place to live in. In other words, we must create more and more, and that is the logic of the madhouse.
A nuclear war can also be started by accident. Nuclear weapons, as has been said, and will be said, are terrifying both in their type and in their number. They are probably the result of the most expensive misuse of knowledge ever made by man. That knowledge is being used to create weapons for genocide. In 1977 the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute said that every few months there were reports of some kind of accident with nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon systems. The situation is getting worse because of the increased number of weapons and because of other factors which I shall describe.
In 1982 the United States reported that the computer systems used to interpret information on possible attack were dangerously obsolete. That is not surprising, given the values of that country. It is calculated that the United States spends more money on brass bands than on nuclear disarmament talks. The other, more important, variable is that when billions of dollars are concentrated on weapons and weapon systems it is not surprising that other aspects are overlooked. The present computer systems are thoroughly suspect and have led to several incidents which could have had terrifying results for the world.
A congressional report prepared in June 1980, in which several distinguished people participated, showed that the North American defence command experienced 147 false alerts in 18 months. That is not just an occasional risk. In addition, there were four much more serious incidents in which B52 bombers and intercontinental ballistic missiles were put on a higher state of alert. If one considers realistically the pressure and tension of the bomber crews and the missile command force, one appreciates the magnitude of the problem. If such incidents occur in the

United States, which is at least brave enough to document them, they must also occur in Britain, the Soviet Union and every other country which has nuclear weapons.
Several hon. Members have talked about deterrence. Although I have never supported that concept, I understood the argument when two sides each had very big, albeit cumbersome and inaccurate, weapons to fire at each other. I could also see some intelligence in the argument of the multilateralists, although I disagreed with them, but the present situation shows how wrong they were. In the past two decades the world has accumulated a minimum of 50,000 nuclear warheads. While talking about multilateral nuclear disarmament, we have continuously been building up the number of nuclear weapons.
We have increased not only the quantity, but the quality, producing highly accurate weapons with the preemptive strike capability which features so strongly in the calculations of President Reagan, the Prime Minister and others like them. The weapons that we now have are such that the nuclear threshold is continuously lowered, the level of insecurity continuously increased and paranoid fears introduced. That combination makes war by accident a long-term certainty.
You must consider the scenario. If we have weapons such as Pershing and cruise with the radar signature of a seagull, the Soviets will inevitably go on to automatic computer response. That means that two fundamental parts must work perfectly at all times. The radar must not make any misreadings and the computer must not malfunction. A Pershing 2 can reach the Soviet Union from Germany in a very short time: some say four minutes, others say six. Let us take an outside estimate of eight minutes. If the Soviets suspect that a Pershing 2 is heading for the Soviet Union they will not have time to call the Politburo together and say, "What the hell shall we do?" The radar will read that a missile is attacking and the computer will determine an appropriate response—and that response will be to fire their missiles. The result will be to destroy not only mankind but ultimately every living thing on earth.
If you accept 147 errors in 18 months by the nation which boasts that it has the most advanced technology in the world and that the Soviet Union lags behind it in modern technology, it is clear that war is likely to start, not because a Pershing 2 has actually been fired, but because the Soviets believe that it has been fired. In those circumstances, accidental war is not just a possibility, but almost inevitable.

Mr. Bill Walker: As the hon. Gentleman has clearly studied this matter in great depth, will he tell us the flight time of the SS20? Is not the scenario that he describes equally likely the other way round?

Mr. Boyes: Of course it is. That is my argument. If it can happen with the Pershing 2, our people may equally well think that they are being attacked by an SS20. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who is clearly also an expert, will appreciate, however, that there is no comparison between SS20s and cruise missiles. The big danger is that the Soviets will not only keep their SS20s but will be forced to create a new generation of weapons. That will result in more tension, more problems and more likelihood of an accidental nuclear war.
Somebody, somewhere, must end this madness before everyone is destroyed. Clearly, that move will not come


from the lot on the Government side. The Secretary of State does not want to play war games. He wants to get on with the real thing. I had hoped that before more and more nations, some of them totally irresponsible, got hold of nuclear weapons, someone somewhere would start getting rid of them. I had hoped that the Labour party would win the election so that we could set that example to the rest of the world. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh, but I am pleased to have been elected at a time when my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) is still leader of the Opposition. No tribute is too high for what that man has done in the cause of peace. Some of you guys and lasses—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not keep referring to the Chair and accusing me of various things.

Mr. Boyes: Some Conservative Members suggested that the Labour leader would not last the campaign, but it is the young boyo from the Liberal party who is taking a few months holiday. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent survived the campaign and is here fighting for the things that we believe in.
I believe that 1983 is the most dangerous year that mankind has faced. Once we have cruise missiles at Greenham common—they may already be there, but the authorities will not say whether they are or when they are coming because they know that we shall try to stop them — we shall have entered the most dangerous period ever, in which nuclear war by accident will have changed from a dream to reality.

Mr. William Powell: During their recent deliberations, the boundary commissioners decided that the county of Northamptonshire should have an additional parliamentary constituency and created one around the town of Corby. I am the first Member of Parliament ever to be returned for the constituency of Corby.
My first pleasant duty is to pay tribute to the two Members of Parliament from whose constituencies the new constituency of Corby was created. Bill Homewood, formerly Member of Parliament for Kettering, came to the House rather later in life than do many, having spent much of his life in the steel industry. It was his misfortune in a way that he was first elected to the House after the decision to close the Corby steelworks had been made. In all matters concerning steel he built a great reputation and was well liked and respected by Members of Parliament on both sides of the House.
Of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), from whom I draw nearly half of my constituency, I can only say that I am glad that he is still with us. Everywhere I go I hear nothing but the highest praise for his extraordinary ability as a constituency Member.
Corby has been associated with steel. Once, no less than 68 per cent. of the town's working population was dependent, directly or indirectly, on steel. That is no longer so as a result of a decision that was made in 1978. However, Corby has witnessed a resurgence since that devastating decision to close the town's sole industry.
It is right that I should pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence who, more than anyone else in our capital city, was responsible for the

resurgence of Corby. He made it an assisted area, granted it enterprise zone status and introduced legislation that led to the sale of a substantial number of council houses. Moreover, he altered the instructions to the Commission for the New Towns so that it became the principal body by which the Government funded factory development in Corby.
Many new Members of Parliament have been returned as a result of substantial public interest in defence during the election campaign. We enjoyed notable victories in many constituencies. We have had the privilege and pleasure of hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) whose victory owes a great deal to defence issues. No doubt the same can be said of the success of my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks). There were many other constituencies in which deface was decisive.
Although the constituency of Corby is huge — it covers 500 square miles — it has no special defence interest. However, there are two marginal interests—one of which might become important — which it is not inappropriate for me to mention. I share the county boundary between Northamptonshire and Cambridgeshire with my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). That boundary is straddled by the Royal Air Force base at Wittering which is the home of the Harrier. Each day, thousands of my constituents live their lives and work at their occupations under the substantial noise of Harrier pilot training. Few of them object to the noise as they know that the work must be done. However, I cannot overlook the enormous noise which that training necessarily causes.
Also on the boundary between Northamptonshire and Cambridgeshire can be found the boundary fence of Molesworth airfield. Today it is derelict, but, if it proves impossible to reach a satisfactory accommodation with the Soviet Union over the deployment of SS20s and cruise and Pershing missiles, in four to five years it will be a significant place. The overwhelming majority of my constituents know that their safety will depend on our ability to withstand and deter the threats and weapons that the Soviet Union is prepared to challenge and blackmail us with.
My sense of privilege and occasion at appearing here and speaking for the first time has been tempered with a sense of great sadness because we were treated earlier to a speech to which I reacted with incredulity and dismay. Perhaps I may be pardoned for referring to it in my maiden speech as frivolous. I refer to the speech of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin). Many Conservative Members have been returned to Parliament because of that frivolous attitude towards defence. The Labour party argued in that way during the election campaign. Perhaps I may be allowed one memory of it. I shall not forget an elderly lady approaching me on almost the first day and saying that she had been a Labour voter all her life but that she would cast her first Conservative vote on 9 June because "Michael Foot will abolish the Army". Even if the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) did not expressly echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) quoted of Mr. George Lansbury, many people believed that that was the right hon. Gentleman's view.
The Opposition have paid a high price for not taking defence seriously. I found the speech of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford so unsatisfactory


because of the outrageous way in which he chose to refer to our relations with the United States. We are not able to choose the Governments of other countries; we must accept them. I hope that all British Governments will try to treat all other Governments with courtesy and consideration. To speak of the President of the United States, a man who, no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman was hoping to be negotiating with now if his party had won the general election, as "Reagan this" and "Reagan that" shows a depressing want of the respect which I should have hoped would be shown to leaders of all countries.
The problem goes deeper than that. Substantial hostility towards the United States has grown up among a certain section of the British public. I am sure that the overwhelming majority of British people, certainly all of my right hon. and hon. Friends, believe that the peace of the world has been preserved throughout my lifetime by the Atlantic Alliance—the partnership between North America and Western Europe. That is the cornerstone of our hopes for freedom in the future. The right hon. Gentleman said that there is nothing to choose between the two super-powers, that the British fleet is the one that protects the United States, that the United States needs NATO more than NATO needs the United States, and that the United Kingdom was the paymaster of NATO. All of that, and much more in his speech, I found frivolous and outrageous.
This is the annual occasion on which we debate the defence Estimates and the defence White Paper. For me, the highlight of the debate so far, as I had expected, was the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley). I hope that the questions that he asked will be answered by the Minister when he replies to the debate. We congratulate the Government on the way in which they have given defence a much greater priority than it was given when the Opposition formed the Treasury Bench, but we fear that the momentum that has built up to improve our armed services will not be sustained in the later part of this decade.
Some alarming decisions may have to be made if our economy does not produce much greater growth than has happened during the past decade or more. The crunch will come, and if it comes when there is no substantial economic growth, uncomfortable decisions may have to be taken, as the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot implied. The Opposition are entitled to draw attention to these matters, and they will be joined by many on these Benches who have the interests and security of our country at heart. I have a personal reason for watching the performance of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, because my brother is the commanding officer of his own battalion.
Many issues have been raised in this debate, and it is no job of mine to reply to them. If I was saddened by the speech of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford I was tantalised by that of the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), who told us that if he has anything to do with the next election the Opposition will fight on the same defence policies as they did in the last election. Frankly, every Conservative Member would welcome that. If the Opposition fight on the same defence platform as they did last time, they will have learned nothing. They will have shown that they know nothing, and do not deserve the approbation of our people.
What is at stake in defence debates is the peace of our continent and the world. We on this side will ensure that Her Majesty's Ministers see that as the highest priority in the coming four to five years.

Mr. Mark Fisher: It is a pleasure to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell). He began by paying a generous and gracious tribute to a former member of our party, Mr. Bill Homewood, who was a fine member of the Labour party and of this House. His speech went on to display — although I do not agree with its contents — a confidence and clarity in debating skill which I found remarkable in a maiden speech. It was a genuine debating speech, responding to the debate with much skill and with formidable and almost veteran proficiency and expertise. Clearly, he will be a formidable opponent in this Chamber, and I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members look forward to his contributions which, if they are as confident, clear and skilful in the deployment of his argument, however misguided, will add something impressive to our debates.
I should like to consider one aspect of the defence Estimates about which the British people have recently shown concern, and that is the arrangements governing the use of nuclear weapons systems sited in this country, what is commonly called dual-key—or not dual-key—-control of cruise missiles. The Government's policy is described on page 6 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" at paragraph 210. I find it less than helpful. Indeed, it does little to allay our fears. If the paragraph does not offer the control that it implies, the British people will quickly come to see the introduction of United States cruise missiles for what they really are — in my opinion, a dangerous escalation of the nuclear cold war, over which this country will have no effective control. Our independent, so-called nuclear defence system will be revealed to be neither our own nor independent.
I want to look at the paragraph in some detail. It says:
The arrangements governing the use in an emergency of these American bases and nuclear weapons systems are those provided for in the understanding reached between Mr. Atlee and President Truman in 1951 and reaffirmed by Mr. Churchill and President Truman in 1952.
The understanding in 1951 and 1952 did no such thing. For a start, it is a press communiqué. It is not a treaty. It is not a negotiated settlement. It is not a signed document. It is a press release. Are the Government asking the country to accept that a 31-year-old press release is a sufficient basis for the control of nuclear weapons?
What does this press communiqué say? Does it offer a working and workable understanding? It contains precisely two sentences on United States bases. There is no mention of the word "nuclear", as implied in paragraph 210. There is no mention of weapons or weapon systems. There is no mention of the word "missiles".

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman should have read a little further, because it goes on to say:
The existing understandings between the United Kingdom and the United States governing the use by the United States of nuclear weapons and bases in this country have been jointly reviewed in the light of the planned deployment of cruise missiles.
So it is not an ancient agreement. It is something that has been brought bang up to date.

Mr. Fisher: I shall come to what the hon. Lady says, and I hope that she will bear with me. If she is not satisfied by my treatment of the words, I shall gladly give way to her.
As there is no mention of the words "nuclear weapons" or "missiles", the press communiqué is irrelevant to cruise. I hope that the Minister who replies to the debate will explain how it constitutes an arrangement in nuclear weapons systems when none of those things is mentioned in the press communiqué to which the Prime Minister and Secretary of State constantly refer as the basis of this understanding.
The Minister may claim, as the Prime Minister claimed, that after 31 years there is a de facto agreement, but cruise is a new weapon. It is quite different from anything that has gone before, as. the Government acknowledge. Cruise missiles are not limited to bases, which is what the press communiqué said in 1952. They can be deployed anywhere. I hope that the Minister will explain how this press communiqué, which refers only to bases, can conceivably cover cruise.
We are told in the next sentence that
use would be a matter for joint decision",
but we have not been told by the Government how that joint decision will work, either politically or operationally. At what level will it work? Will it work on a President-Prime Ministerial level between the Pentagon and Whitehall, or between the chiefs of defence staff at base level? The Government have not explained that.
It is the Government's duty to make clear to the House and the country just how that relationship will work. What contingency arrangements are there if, by chance, the Russians should be so inconsiderate as to start a real, or supposed, alert when the Prime Minister is unavailable? Has not Mr. Schlesinger said that American forces have been alerted twice in our country and that the Government have not been consulted because of an "insufficiency of time"? I understand that those two occasions were the Yom Kippur war and the Iranian hostage crisis. What price joint decisions in a time of real crisis.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments on the dual key and I agree with some of them. However, I would have more confidence if they did not come from the mouth of someone who belongs to a party that would not have cruise on any account, whether or not there was a single or dual key. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if those safeguards were built in, he would be prepared to accept cruise missiles on British territory?

Mr. Fisher: No. Like, I believe, all Labour Members, I am not in favour of cruise missiles. We would not deploy them. However, the reality is that they will be deployed by this Government. I, for one, am determined to scrutinise the arrangements under which they are to be deployed and to ensure that the country understands exactly what control of those weapons consists of. I make no bones about my objection, but I am prepared to scrutinise the arrangements.
In the sentences that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) referred to, we are told that the understanding has been jointly reviewed in the light of cruise. However, in the Prime Minister's answer to a question asked by me on 30 June, and in her answer last week to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland), she did not mention the word "review". She

referred directly back to the 1952 understanding. Was there a substantive review rather than simply a formal renewal when the right hon. Lady became Prime Minister? If so, neither the country nor the House has been told. If there was one, where did it take place and on what date? Which Ministers were involved? What additional arrangements were discussed or agreed? Is there another document? What is in it? Why has it not been mentioned, much less released?
During Question Time today the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) said that in the "Question Time" programme that was broadcast on television during the election campaign, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he had seen a document on that understanding. I understood the Prime Minister's reply to be that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that he had seen it, he had seen it. That suggests that there has been a review, but when the Prime Minister acknowledged that this afternoon, it was the first time that she recognised its existence.
That is a serious point and I hope that the Minister will relate it to whoever intends to reply to the debate. If that Minister says that there is a document, I can conclude only that it is amazing that the country should learn in such a way of substantial renegotiations or additional negotiations of the arrangements governing cruise missiles. If, on the other hand, the Minister says that there is no document, what on earth was the Prime Minister referring to this afternoon? I shall give way willingly to the Minister if he wishes to answer now. What was the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Foreign Secretary referring to in "Question Time" on television? What is being referred to in the defence Estimates? Either there has, or has not been, a substantive review. The Minister must tell us clearly tonight which of those propositions is correct and which pertains.
The defence Estimates say that the Government are satisfied that such a form of defence is effective. Labour Members are not satisfied, and the country will not be satisfied. Unless the Minister has something very important to say to us in reply to the debate, I suspect that the country will consider that the Government are dangerously complacent on a matter of crucial importance. The Government, the Secretary of State and the Minister tonight must be more explicit and must answer the questions that have been raised in the debate. If they cannot do so, I must conclude that these are not defence Estimates but estimates of escalation that offer no reasonable control over cruise missiles.
If the Minister does not reply to those points at the end of the debate, Labour Members will pursue him on that point and will show the British people the truth of what we said during the general election, with which many people agreed. That is, that this country does not want cruise missiles, because they put us at risk. However, if we are to have them we must have public, clear and formal assurances about what control will consist of. I await the reply to the debate in order to hear what those reviews and controls really are.

Mr. Robert Atkins: We have heard much from new hon. Members, as well as from other right hon. and hon. Members, about nuclear strategy, disarmament and so on. I wish to concentrate, as I often try to do during such debates, on an area that is not


sufficiently discussed. I refer to the defence industrial base and to the problems of defence procurement. However, before doing so, I must mention not a maiden speech, but a maiden constituency.
My former constituency of Preston, North was reconstituted out of existence. I now have the privilege to sit for a new constituency called South Ribble, which comprises parts of three former constituencies —Chorley, South Fylde and Preston, South. Indeed, I thank the former hon. Member for Preston, South who now sits for Preston (Mr. Thorne) for the work that he did in representing that part of Lancashire. I also thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member who now sits for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover), from whom I have now taken over Leyland.
There is more to defence than just the threat. Although I have a real and active connection with the Queen's Lancashire regiment and the north-west headquarters of the Army, also based in my former constituency and near enough to my new one to have a great impact on it, my new constituency has substantial defence interests. Indeed, in the past it also had substantial defence interests. For example, Penwortham castle was built by Roger de Poicteau, who fought at the battle of Hastings. The famous Ribble bridge crosses the Ribble and was the site of an important battle in 1648, during the last period of the civil war. The Unicorn — once a public house but now a restaurant — is where Oliver Cromwell set up his headquarters for that famous battle.
We also have a little place called Cuerdale, which is the smallest parish in my constituency and consists of 29 souls. That is roughly the same as the majority that I had when I represented Preston, North. As some hon. Members may know, it is famous for the Cuerdale haul of Danish gold coins, which were found in about 1840. It is a little bit of Danegeld in reverse, because the Danes ran away and we kept the money. Leyland, in my constituency, is an ancient hundred that is famous, among other things, for its Saxon cross.
However, I wish to talk about the industrial base. Four of the major companies involved in defence that are mentioned in the top 25 in the White Paper are in my constituency. They are British Aerospace, BTR, Leyland Vehicles and, just over the border in Chorley, the ordnance factory, where a substantial number of people work. Indeed, I very much support the Government's policy in that regard. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Minister on the Front Bench. He will know of my interest in ordnance factories and in the work that he has been doing to put them op the same basis as Companies Act companies, to bring sales teams into their operations—instead of having to rely on the Ministry of Defence—and to inject private equity capital into them. I know that his work in that respect will come to fruition at the end of the year, and I strongly support it.
The privatisation of the ordnance factories will be a boon for the employees. They have nothing to fear. They already make some of the best products in the world and I am convinced that a facility that allows them to own shares and participate in their future more than they do now will be of great benefit to them. I shall seek to defend them whenever I have the opportunity.
Leyland Vehicles makes many vehicles for the armed services. I share Samlesbury aerodrome with my hon. and

learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office in the sense that British Aerospace has one of its three major plants there. The House will not be surprised to learn that I seek to take the British Aerospace whip. I cannot do much else, but I do so willingly because it employs many people who work hard to make some of the best products in the world. British Aerospace leads the world in many of the areas in which it is involved.
The subcontractors who are involved in the day-to-day operation of defence contracts are also important. I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say that he would pay more attention to directing work towards smaller companies. As many hon. Members will know, there has been considerable concern that major contractors have been taking the leadership on contracts and that contracts have not been getting down to some of the smaller subcontractors in a way that the Defence Manufacturers Association has said it would wish to see. I was delighted to hear what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will be doing in this area.
I take this opportunity publicly to congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement on the particular attention that he has given to this area. In the last Parliament he built a reputation in the House for the work that he had done and, more importantly he has built a reputation worldwide for speaking out for British defence, aerospace and other industries' interests in a way that we have not seen for many years. I congratulate him wholeheartedly on what he has done.
There are many battles to be fought in connection with the defence industries. They are important to us strategically because of exports and jobs, and they are important because in many areas we are the best in the world. Therefore, we have a part to play. Defence sales, which I know come within my hon. Friend's ambit, have done very well in the past year, amounting to £2,400 million. I read a report today that there is good news and bad news. The good news is that we have signed a big deal for Sea Eagle to be sold to India; the bad news is that defence sales were not terribly well received by industrialists in China. I allow for the fact that the imperturbability of the Chinese makes selling anything to them particularly difficult, but my hon. Friend may wish to comment on that.
There are areas of concern. The first is an internal problem. I have mentioned this before and I know that my hon. Friend has thought about the matter. I shall be interested to hear whether he is considering doing anything about it. The problem is that of having within the Ministry of Defence many serving officers on a two-year or so term who are involved in defence sales and defence procurement. By the very nature of the work, it takes 12 to 15 months to build them up to be able to speak with authority on a wide range of projects, as opposed to those in which they may have been interested in their former environment. There is room for bringing more professionalism into defence sales and defence procurement.
I believe that the services should be more aware of the importance of industry. That is why I was a little concerned to receive a copy of a letter which my hon. Friend had written—I am sure he had a good reason for it — to a company with which I have been in


correspondence about clothing. The company makes a non-inflammable material called "Firotex". In the letter my hon. Friend said:
We certainly try hard to help British firms and British products to be successful; but in the Defence field this is incidental to our procurement, and not one of its principal aims.
I recognise that it is not the principal aim, but surely it must be an important aim and one of the principal aims to ensure that we are aware that industry—whether on advice from inside or outside the Department or even from civil servants—has a real part to play. The role played by the Select Committee on Defence in the last Parliament in its investigation into procurement and sales is one which my hon. Friend will agree is relevant to what we are discussing. I hope that some more of the ideas discussed by the Committee will be taken into account and used further.
The second and biggest concern is the worldwide problem of protectionism. I am sure that I do not have to bore the House by talking at length of the problems of the two-way street — supposedly a motorway in one direction and a country lane in the other. That is not so any longer, largely because of the efforts of my hon. Friend and the leading industries in this country. There is still a particular problem which largely centres on the United States, particularly in technology transfer.
In recent weeks, months and even years we have seen certain difficulties. Hon. Members may recall the difficulties that we have had with a company called Martin Baker, which supplies ejection seats for a variety of fighter aeroplanes. Perhaps the name of Martin Baker does not spring to the lips of everyone, even those involved in defence procurement, but it is the world leader in ejection seats and safety mechanisms. Martin Baker won a contract fair and square, and then had difficulties because of Congress. Secondly, a manufacturer of nuclear biological chemical suits won an order fairly and squarely, but got into difficulties because of problems in the United States. British Aerospace Hawk won a competition for the VTX TS requirement of the United States, but having won the deal fair and square found itself facing another competitor brought in merely because the American Congress wanted that to be so.
Above all, there have been recent difficulties with the so-called specialty metals clause. This has caused considerable difficulties for industrialists not only in Britain but among our NATO allies. I was so concerned about this matter that I wrote to my right: hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to make my views known on a variety of matters, particularly on a missile to which I shall refer in a moment. I was delighted to receive my right hon. and learned Friend's reply, which said:
I share your concern about protectionism trends in the United States. We have made our views on this clear in contacts with the United States Administration. Indeed, the views of the Administration are very similar to our own; as you know, the problem lies mainly in the Congress.
I realise that my right hon. and learned Friend worked hard during a recent trip to the United States to put across this difficulty, but he will know that Senator John Tower, who is an important and influential chairman of one of the Senate Committees, was in Britain a week or so ago. I had the good fortune to be able to talk to him on the Terrace about some of the problems. As many hon. Members will know, Senator Tower is a great anglophile and is keen to assist in many ways. He made it clear that the difficulty over the specialty metals clause and the waiver that is so

important to our industrialists can be overcome. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister and other hon. Friends to ensure that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and other Departments that can influence this matter keep the pressure up.
I draw the attention of the House to an important editorial in Aviation Week and Space Technology of 30 June, in which the editor, who is influential in these circles, referred to the problem of the transfer of technology. He said:
What free traders object to is the dogmatic, everything-is-black-or-white mode of some of the crusaders in the Administration.
He is referring to the American Government
Techology transfer controls are becoming a religion, a body of dogma rather than a set of complex issues with conflicting advantages and disadvantages … Go-it-alone is a wasteful approach to many European industrialists or government policy-makers, but the muttering about doing just that is a measure of the European resentment of the changing United States policy … Europe has the technology and the supplier tier to go-it-alone if it chooses.
There are people in the United States who are aware of the problems of technology transfer. I do not need to mention the difficulties that we are having in another environment in the United States, with the Laker Airlines protection of trade suit as well as the difficulties over the engines for the airbus.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister answer four questions? First, what is happening to air staff target 404 in relation to replacement helicopters? Secondly, what is the position with the helicopters of the Queen's flight? I questioned my hon. Friend about that matter recently, and I understand that the most recent helicopter was built in 1969. We should now consider some change in the flight. Thirdly, is my hon. Friend's Department doing any thing about the current review of the Property Services Agency being carried out by the Department of the Environment? A number of people in my constituency work in the PSA. Fourthly, has my hon. Friend considered the problems of a number of civil airlines with the national air traffic service? I refer especially to the division between military and civil. The civil service is concerned about the refusal of NATS, for example, in relation to Portmoak on gliding. It is also concerned about the problems of separation and the unnecessary doglegging for civil airlines because of difficulties with military airspace.
My right hon. and hon. Friends will not be surprised to hear me raise my final two points. Although I know that my hon. Friend the Minister cannot comment on my first point, everyone knows his strong views about it. I refer to the imminent decision on the ALARM and HARM—the high-speed anti-radar missile manufactured by Texas Instruments in conjunction with Lucas Aerospace, and the air-launched anti-radiation missile largely built by British Aerospace in conjunction with Marconi and other subcontractors.
I wish to emphasise the importance of deciding in favour of the ALARM missile. It is only half the price of HARM, and I hope that the new price that has now been submitted will make it even more competitive. The dual-role Tornado, as opposed to the dedicated-role Tornado, cannot carry JP233 as well as the American HARM missile without a substantial redesign. ALARM has the best equipment to do the job. British Aerospace is offering a fixed-price contract as opposed to a cost-plus contract with Texas Instruments and Lucas. Above all, we would not need a transfer of technology on the seeker head if it were


manufactured in Britain. If we decided in favour of the HARM, it would be difficult to achieve a transfer of technology, for the reasons that I gave earlier.
I wish to touch on a point that is important to my constituency and also to surrounding constituencies. I am delighted to see here some of my hon. Friends who represent the surrounding constituencies. The advanced combat aircraft is under consideration at the Preston division of British Aerospace. It is a vital project, not only for industry, politics and local jobs, but strategically for our defence requirements. I shall not go into detail about the aeroplane. Suffice it to say that I and British Aerospace at Preston are pleased with the commitment from the Ministry of Defence. I take issue with one or two Opposition Members who have said that the Government are not doing all that is necessary on the advanced combat aircraft, which is now known as the experimental aircraft project. The Government have done all that is possible.
Hon. Members will know that we are awaiting a vital decision by the German Government, upon which the project will depend. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will urge the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to continue its pressure on the German Government. We do not want the Germans to be persuaded by the French ACX project, as that will cause difficulties for the ACA. The ACA is the best aeroplane of its kind.
I recently read a report that the Americans were toying with the idea of offering a practical fighter—a larger aeroplane with 45,000 lb thrust.

Mr. Michael Marshall (Arundel): My hon. Friend's comments about the ACA are of great significance. Does he agree that time is of the essence? If the German decision is postponed because of French approaches, that could kill the ACA project.

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend is right. There is a time constraint on the project. I am sure that the Government have done all that needs to be done to date. Pressure needs to be brought to bear on Messchersmitt Bolkow Bloehm —and through it on the German Government—to ensure that the German Government make a favourable decision. If they do not, not only will there be difficulties for the ACA, but the difficulties in European aerospace cooperation will become even greater. The importance of ACA is that if the German aerospace industry joins the project, the Italian aerospace industry will join it also. There is a real possibility that the French aerospace industry will want a slice of the action. It is important that a decision is taken by the German Government, and we must continue our pressure on them to do so.
I am sorry to have delayed the House over-long, but the matters of procurement and the industrial base have not been previously mentioned in the debate. It is right and appropriate to recognise the important role being fulfilled by my hon. Friend the Minister and other colleagues. The matters are not discussed as often as they should be and their vital importance to the aerospace industry should not be underestimated.
I am delighted to support the White Paper and its conclusion about the defence industry. I cannot emphasise too strongly the role played by my hon. Friend the Minister. I do not say that because I want a bottle of champagne. My hon. Friend has done a remarkable job. I know that many hon. Members across the party spectrum

recognise the importance of that job, and long may they do so. We need people such as my hon. Friend to advance the cause of British industry, and especially the British defence industry, throughout the world. I look forward to listening to my hon. Friend when he replies to the debate.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: It was a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins). I share many of his views on defence procurement. His comments apply to the mainspring of my constituency, which is Westland Helicopters.
I begin with what hon. Members might call the rhetoric of the defence debate. Taking a cynical view, there is always something of a gap between the rhetoric of different political parties and their actions. I suspect that that is more frequently true in defence than in other areas. There is a most distressing gap between the Government's rhetoric on defence and disarmament and their actions on the ground. An instance of that was the United Nations special conference on disarmament last year. We are told by the Government that multilateralness — if there is such a thing—is closest to godliness.
I have been involved in negotiations on behalf of Britain in international affairs. I agree that it is much better to reach agreements in concert with one's fellows than to take unilateral action. I found it depressing, therefore, that when the Government moved into the most multilateral forum in the world, the United Nations special conference on disarmament, they voted — sometimes in the most dubious and lonely company—against no fewer than 25 motions in favour of disarmament of one sort or another.
Not all of those were crackpot motions. However, this Government who believe in multilateralism managed to vote against an international convention to ban nuclear weapon tests; against an international convention against the first use of nuclear weapons; and against an international convention to provide security for non-nuclear states. I thought that we were in favour of nonproliferation because it must be to everybody's advantage in that it must increase the security of non-nuclear states. Nevertheless, we managed to vote against it.
That is by no means the end of the story. We abstained on a number of issues for which I should have thought that a Government committed to multilateral action in the most multilateral forum in the world, would have been happy to vote. But we abstained on the creation of a nuclear-free zone in Africa; on the creation of a nuclear-free zone in Asia; and we abstained, heaven forbid, on the creation of an international convention to stop the nuclear arms race in space. Any Government who call themselves multilateral and are unable to support at least some of those policies have no logical or moral right to lecture the rest of us about multilateralism.
Nor, I am afraid, is the case much different when we consider that other piece of rhetoric in the defence and disarmament debate, unilateralism. The Government tell us — and I agree — that in general terms international unilateral action is to be deplored. It seems, however, that only some kinds of unilateral action are to deplored. Unilateral action in favour of peace or disarmament is to be deplored, but unilateral action to increase arms we support with some enthusiasm, because that is precisely what the Trident decision is.
The Trident decision will increase independently, unilaterally, our capacity to act by ourselves, and therefore


one is forced to draw the conclusion that the Conservatives take the view that unilateral action for peace is wrong whereas unilateral action to increase armaments— and perhaps even bring war closer—is all right.
The Trident decision, on which I wish particularly to concentrate, does harm in a number of other ways. It is probably insufficiently understood by the Secretary of State and his colleagues that the NATO Alliance, which Liberal Members bend to no one in supporting, rests not just on the ability of our armies, navies and air forces, or the strength of the treaty which binds us; it rests also on the political will that holds NATO together.
The Trident decision is admitted—it was admitted by the Secretary of State's predecessor — to have arisen from our lack of confidence in NATO to be able to act, to use the unilateral deterrent, on our behalf. He said that we needed it because we might have to act alone. That undermines the political will which holds NATO together. In our judgment, that is a move not much less destructive to the political will of NATO than the move taken by the French. Indeed, the French went a step further and withdrew from the military alliance. Certainly it is a move which has sent shock waves through political and military circles in NATO, and the comments of the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General Rogers, go some way to bear that out.
The Trident decision has worked contrary to our commitment to the non-proliferation treaty. Many regard the decision as being against the terms of that treaty, and some believe that it is a breach of that treaty's regulations. If that is not the case de jure, it has massively weakened Britain's capacity to recommend non-Proliferation to other states of the world.
On the one hand we have said, "You must not have more nuclear weapons, but it is all right for us to do so"; we have said, in other words, "Do not as I do but as I say". We have undermined the morality by which we can press ahead in perhaps the most important of all areas, that of ensuring that nuclear weapons not only are controlled but do not spread to other nations.
The Trident decision gives rise to a paradox which springs from the twin decisions to have Trident and to permit American cruise missiles to be on British soil. Simply expressed, that paradox is that, while we do not trust our allies sufficiently to be able to use NATO's nuclear weapons in our favour, we must have a hugely expensive nuclear weapons system. Then we go on to say that we trust them so much that we will allow them to place their nuclear weapons on our soil, without the British people having a fail-safe physical finger on the trigger. I should be grateful if the Government would help to unravel that paradox, one which sends unclear messages to people here and abroad.
Unhappily the follies of the Trident decision do not stop there. I pay tribute to the courageous comments of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), who is temporarily absent. He was right to say that the defence resources which will be committed shortly to the Trident system must he taken from other categories, in particular from the Royal Navy. It is its effects on conventional defence that concern me most, and it is the reducing strength of the Royal Navy on which I shall concentrate now, an aspect referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston). My hon. Friend referred to some comments made by Admiral of the Fleet, Lord Hill-Norton, who said:

In the vital NATO role, Britain now falls far short of the escorts required of her by the Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic".
He pointed out that under present financial limits—the Maritime League agrees — the strength of the Royal Navy towards the latter part of this decade will fall significantly short of the irreducible level of 50 escorts which the Ministry of Defence believes are required to fulfil our worldwide role. It is a poor state of affairs indeed that this nation, having made a commitment to NATO, is unable to fulfil its role in the north Atlantic fleet. I fear that that extends further, because that begins to lower the threshold of nuclear war.
Not long ago I was a Royal Marines officer in a commando unit one of whose tasks was to defend the northern flank of NATO against Russian aggression—to defend the NATO flank which encompasses Norway—and at that time we had HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid, a sufficient force to encompass that task. Under the defence review put forward by the Secretary of State's predecessor, those two ships were to be scrapped, and I had sight of the operational plan to carry Royal Marine commandos to the northern flank of NATO—at that time to counter Russian aggression—in a British Sealink ferry.
The life of Fearless and Intrepid has been extended, but we do not know whether those vessels are to be replaced. Will those two ships, those two key elements of the Royal Navy and of our capacity to fulfil our role in NATO, be replaced when their life runs out?
What I have described is bad for defence and for the nation because it lowers the nuclear threshold. Indeed, in that instance, if the Russians had attacked northern Norway, we would not have sent a task force there. The moment at which we would have had to press the nuclear button would have been closer as a result of that conventional force weakness.
That is a factor that has some significance to defence procurement, and my constituency depends very much on the production of helicopters. Indeed, it makes the best maritime helicopters in the world. The strength of the Royal Navy has already been significantly reduced, but it seems that it will be reduced still further as a consequence of the Trident programme. This prospect is viewed with great concern.
The chairman of Westland Helicopters, Lord Aldington, is an ex-Tory Minister who had responsibility for defence procurement. In his recent annual report, he commented that on no fewer than seven occasions the Government had not supported him when faced with certain crucial decisions, especially on the EH 101 joint project with the Italians. He claimed that decisions had not been made in time and that the future of the EH101 project, which will be vital to our defences and to the economy of my constituency, must be decided soon. The decisions have not been made and the future of the project, as I understand it, is in jeopardy.
The future of our defence industries and of our defence systems is an area of considerable concern in my constituency. The position is already dangerous enough, but it will be made much more dangerous if, regrettably, the Trident decision is put into effect. That decision is both illogical and dangerous. It will unbalance our conventional defence effort and lower the threshold of nuclear war.
For all those reasons, my colleagues and I will be voting against the Estimates tomorrow evening.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to address the House for the first time in this important debate. My constituency lies to the west and the north of Nottingham. It is a city with proud traditions which were so ably described by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) during last week's debate on Second Reading of the Housing and Building Control Bill. I represent a largely residential constituency, and about 60 per cent. of the houses in it are council houses. I see many council houses being improved as the tenants buy them, which is a tribute to the right-to-buy policy.
As I have said, my consituency lies to the north of Nottingham, leaving the city's industries to the south. Those industries include the Boots organisation and the Raleigh bicycle factory. There are also the royal ordnance factories. To the north of the constituency is the small market town of Bulwell, which is geographically separated from Nottingham by the Babbington colliery.
Parts of my new constituency were previously represented by two well-known Members in the previous Parliament, Mr. Michael English and Mr. Bill Whitlock. Michael English was well known in the House as an expert on its constitution and the rules. I am sure that his departure will be lamented by both sides of the House and not least by yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He was a parliamentarian to whom I pay tribute.
Mr. Bill Whitlock was liked and respected on both sides of the House. I was talking to a Conservative peer only last weekend and he told me that he worked with Bill for some time and found him to be one of the most pleasant and able of persons with whom he had worked. This became apparent to me in my constituency in a very short time. It soon became clear to me that he was liked and respected by many of my constituents. I am proud to be able to pay tribute to him on this occasion.
I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate for two reasons. Firstly, Nottingham has a great tradition of supporting the Royal Navy. This was evidenced early this year with the launching of HMS Nottingham, a very fine ship which brings great enjoyment to my constituents and to all those in Nottingham. They treasure their relationship with that ship. Secondly, I spent nine years in the Royal Navy. I joined in 1962 at the age of 16 and was commissioned four years later. I served on a complete cross-section of ships and had a variety of jobs in the fleet. I served on minesweepers, patrol craft, frigates and, latterly, HMS Eagle, the sister ship to the Ark Royal, which was not adapted to take Phantom aircraft. I served primarily as a deck officer on HMS Eagle but my sub-specialisation was air defence. Air defence officers sit in the ship's operations room and control the air defence battle. I operated the first seaborne air defence computer, which was designed and constructed by Ferranti. In the 1960s the computer was the size of the office in which I work, but such is the advance of modern technology that a similar computer can today be fitted into a filing cabinet and still carry out the same functions.
As an air defence specialist I watched with interest the events in the Falklands conflict last year. During the 1960s, and until HMS Ark Royal was phased out, it was accepted air defence strategy that the only way to stop a low-level missile attack was to destroy the launch aircraft

before the missile was launched. A ship could not do that because the launch aircraft was always over the horizon and not detectable. The only solution was to have low-level intercept fighters controlled by airborne early warning aircraft that detected the incoming plane on radar and controlled the fighter to intercept the attacking aircraft long before the missile was launched. Hon. Members need not be reminded how sadly we missed airborne early warning aircraft during the Falklands conflict.
Much has been made of the next generation of ships and the type of weapon systems that they should have to control the threat of attacks from the Exocet and similar systems. Only one system will effectively deter a low-level missile attack and that is a controlled intercept-fighter aircraft. I view with suspicion claims that ship-launched missile systems could destroy a launched missile. I am not convinced that the Vulcan Phalanx gun is an effective defence against a low level attack. The only defence is an intercept figher controlled by an aircraft with an airborne early warning system.
I welcome the fact that the Searchwater AEW radar is being mounted on Sea King helicopters to provide an early warning system. That is probably the most significant development in the defence of the fleet since the Falklands. I note that the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" describes them as an interim option, but I welcome the fact that the system is to be developed and that the operational carriers will have a complete airborne early warning squadron. That is essential for the operation of the fleet beyond the range of the land-based airborne early warning aircraft.
There has been debate recently, which was highlighted in a "Panorama" programme last week, about the design of the type 23 frigate. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Pink) mentioned that earlier. I was interested to read in the statement that an alternative design is being considered. The argument focuses on two hull designs, one long and thin and the other short and fat. I shall not examine the arguments for the two alternative designs except in one respect. When I left the Royal Navy, I joined the Royal Naval Reserve and commanded one of the Bird class patrol craft. Those vessels suffered primarily from a design fault in that they were short and fat. They were not seaworthy and, because of their short profile, in winds of more than force 5, 80 per cent. of the ship's company would be seasick and flat on their backs, and the ship could hardly be described as operational. Those limits were recognised by the Admiralty and the Minister of Defence. The reason why I tell this story is that I ask my right hon. Friend to give fullest consideration when considering the arguments for the alternative designs to the sea-keeping abilities of the vessels. If not, we shall have one of the most sophisticated warships in the world but the sailors will not be able to operate it, which completely defeats the object of the ship. That is a plea from the heart of someone who spent many an hour in the North sea hanging over the back of a short, fat ship.
I welcome the continued commitment to NATO in the statement. The fleet was always conscious of its duty to protect the western flank of Europe and the Channel. In our commitment to protect Europe, the Royal Navy has a role, and Britain has its strength in fulfilling that role. I support the statement and the motion.

Mr. Martin Flannery: I cannot claim to have been a recent naval officer or a marine commander, but I am deeply interested in the preservation of world peace and in the protection of Britain. The public might be mixed up about the Labour party's policies on defence if they listened to some powerful voices during the election campaign. They sowed confusion deliberately on a grand scale, which discredited the Labour party and lost it many votes.
Everyone should realise that the Labour party's defence policy was thought through over many years, and that deep conflict continued year after year. Before the Labour party puts into its fundamental policy any aspect of political thought, it demands a two thirds majority in support of such an idea at the party conference. The Labour party's defence policy, which was violated by those powerful voices during the election campaign, was decided by a large majority, and that policy was and is for unilateral nuclear disarmament. It must be made clear to the British public that the voices in any contests that may be going on speak purely for themselves, not for the Labour party. I speak on behalf of the democratically decided policy of the Labour party on disarmament.
I profoundly disagree with the defence Estimates, and I wish that the Labour party had the courage to organise itself to go into the Lobbies and to show clearly, by having a bigger array of Members here, precisely what our policy is and why we object to cuts in education, public transport, the National Health Service, benefits to the old and the sick, and in every other aspect of our lives except defence. Expenditure on defence increases steadily year by year, and almost month by month. Britain 's defence policy consists of more than the Estimates. One would think from the Estimates that the Government were expecting a Russian attack at 2 o'clock, just after dinner, on Thursday afternoon.
Let me make it clear that I profoundly believe in the defence of this country. My colleagues have spoken about what they have done. I also have fought for this country. I hold it dear and I want it to defend itself if anyone attacks it. Because of the lies and trickery in the election it is necessary to explain precisely what unilateral nuclear disarmament means. There is a great propaganda machine at the disposal of the Tory party. The Opposition have no propaganda machine. Hardly a newspaper supports us, whereas practically every newspaper all day and night defends any decisions taken by the Tory party. We have to try to get the message across as best we can, as I am doing now.
One of the most significant omissions in the election, made by the four powerful voices purporting to put forward Labour's defence policy was the word "nuclear". CND is the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Somehow it was corrupted into being a "campaign for disarmament". Of course, it is no such thing. It is a campaign for unilateral nuclear disarmament, but the impression was conveyed that we in the Labour party were campaigning for unilateral disarmament, as if we wanted to get rid of all our orthodox weapons. That is absolute nonsense.
Which party was it that sent its fighting soldiers into the south Atlantic without letting them know about Exocet? Which party was it that began withdrawing the ships when

Argentina was about to attack? It was the Tory party. It was disarming this country of orthodox weaponry and selling ships to Australia when we needed them.
Therefore, Tory Members have no need to lecture us on disarmament and rearmament. It can never be denied that our troops were sent to the south Atlantic to face a terrible weapon about which we knew nothing. That weapon is still there. The deaths that occurred in that terrible struggle were due to that weapon about which we knew nothing. It was a disgraceful episode of which our intelligence services had not made our country aware. When ships were being flogged to other nations and we were being disarmed by the Tory party, a terrible weapon was at the disposal of the enemy. Therefore, we do not need lectures from the Tory party on the defence Estimates.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the prospect of British service men having to fight again in the Falklands and possibly die will be decreased greatly if Opposition Members saw fit to back the Government in their intention not to negotiate with Argentina until the sovereignty issue is sorted out?

Mr. Flannery: As I would expect, the hon. Gentleman is utterly confused.
Just before the battle began, the Tory party introduced the British Nationality Act by which it deprived the people of the Falklands of their British nationality. They were negotiating about what was to happen to the Falklands in the background because they were trying to get rid of them. Therefore, let us have no histrionics about what happened in the Falklands. The credit was due to the fighting men in the Falklands and in no way due to the Tory party. If Tory Members can deny that, I should like to hear from them.
I should like to explain, so that it is made clear to the British people, what unilateral nuclear disarmament means. We are fearful that all the world will steadily arm itself with nuclear weapons to such an extent that one day an accident will happen which will plunge us all into Armageddon. That is why the peace movement in the world is much bigger and more international than in 1960, when CND was founded. I was one of its founders.
Millions of people throughout the world are frightened of even small wars because they believe that if, for instance, any of the countries in the middle east possessed nuclear weapons they would be tempted to use them when fighting with their backs to the wall. Everyone knows that South Africa has a nuclear weapon — an explosion occurred three or four years ago in the south Atlantic—and that Argentina is on the brink of having such weapons. We know also that Israel is capable of producing them. We suspect that other countries are on the brink of breaking through the nuclear barrier and having nuclear weapons. If we are democrats who believe that Britain has a right to those weapons, we must believe that every country has such a right. Therefore, as soon as each country has enough money and expertise to build nuclear weapons, it will have them. Something will surely then go wrong and one of those weapons will go off.
The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament says not that America and the Soviet Union should nuclearly disarm, but that we should set an example by disarming because of our prestige and history. We should dislodge the keystone in the nuclear arch. Having done that with all our


strength, and having preserved our orthodox weaponry to defend ourselves, we should say to other countries, "We have set the example. We expect you to join us in persuading the Soviet Union and America to come together to scale down their armaments steadily." It is a matter not just of unilateral disarmament but of unilateral nuclear disarmament.
We hope that our example will spread. That might appear to be a fool's paradise — [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear."] The Conservative party has a history of saying that. Many Opposition Members have never forgotten that, when some of us were struggling against Hitler, Conservative party members were asking all the time for disarmament. If the Government do not believe that, they should examine the columns of the Daily Mail and such newspapers in the 1930s. That is what the Conservative party was doing until Churchill brought it to its senses. [Horn. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] It does not matter that the Government say that this is rubbish. This is the story of unilateral nuclear disarmament. This has nothing to do with Britain disarming unilaterally. The Labour party stands four square in defence of this country. We would retain our conventional weaponry. At the same time, we know that the two giants have their nuclear weapons and that neither will disarm until they come together on international inspection of disarmament.
There have been terrible expenditure cuts all over the place and millions are out of work. We think of the £10,000 million, at least, that is being spent on Trident, the increasing expenditure on cruise, which the Labour party opposes, and Pershing missiles. We think of the great peace movement. It is sad that, although there are differences of opinion in the Labour party, no Conservative Members differ from the fundamental view of the Front Bench. They dare not differ from that view.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does my hon. Friend recognise that a group of Conservatives nationally are opposed to the cruise programme? It is called "Tories against Cruise" and the Government will do everything possible to shut them up and keep them out of this important national debate.

Mr. Flannery: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The powers that be have managed to shut them up, to the extent that I had not heard of them until just now. I cannot believe that they exist.
I have given the facts about unilateral nuclear disarmament. It has nothing in common with the four powerful voices that violated Labour party policy and lost us votes during the election. I have given the real policy of the Labour party. It is one to which we are geared. We have repeatedly passed resolutions on it in conferences. It is a policy against war on behalf of peace. I hope that what my hon. Friend has said is true. One day this policy might envelop the backward ranks in front of me.

Mr. Alistair Burt: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech on a topic that is vital not just to the House, but to the country.
The new constituency of Bury, North which I represent is compact, with a near-optimum electorate, in the eyes of the Boundary Commission, of about 66,960. Its

compactness does not detract from its varied nature. From the fringes of the moors in the north to the suburban belt in the south, it is a constituency with everything. It is a traditional centre for textiles, engineering and the paper industry. It has diversified over the years so as not to rely over-much on any one of them.
We manufacture chemicals, paint and toffee. I am proud that my own slight but genuine industrial experience was gained in the town's toffee works, sweating over a hot cauldron during a summer not dissimilar to this, learning many things on the shop floor which have stood me in good stead. I shall no doubt, Mr. Deputy Speaker, seek to catch your eye in the future to talk about the town's industries and the problems facing the town.
We have small farms and green open spaces. Nowhere else so pleasantly destroys the myth of Lancashire's "dark, satanic mills". It is a constituency of beauty and peace. If I speak of it in over-affectionate terms, I hope it is realised that that is because I was bred and raised there. It is a fortunate man who can represent his home town. I am proud to be a Bury man in Parliament.
A new constituency is not new. It does not spring fully-fledged with no history. It is born of other constituencies. There are parts of two former constituencies in Bury, North. The first is Ramsbottom, to many the jewel of the constituency, with its independence and pride. I inherited it from my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier). Much satisfaction was felt in the town by his appointment to the Government. He leaves me a hard task to follow and I express the town's thanks for his work. His new constituents are most fortunate to have him.
The second, and much larger part of Bury, North, is from the old Bury and Radcliffe constituency. There is sorrow at the loss of that name from Parliament. There is also regret on all sides in Bury at the loss from the House of Mr. Frank White, who served as a fine constituency Member for nine years.
It is perhaps rare for a new Member to express genuine sadness for a Member of the Opposition whom he has beaten. I am aware from the comments made in all parts of the House that Frank White was as popular and respected here as he was in Bury and Radcliffe. I am not ashamed to admit feeling such sadness. Frank White fought an honourable and decent campaign. The finest tribute that I can pay him is to continue his constituency and industrial work and follow his keen Christian witness.
If any one issue assisted me immeasurably in defeating Frank White, it was defence. The respective attitudes of the Government and the Opposition parties are reflected in the Estimates and the debate upon them. My hon. Friend the Member for Adlershot (Mr. Critchley) suggested that Mr. Ken Livingstone was a figment of Conservative Central Office imagination. There were times when most of us on the Conservative Benches thought that the entire Labour party policy on defence was also a figment of our fevered imaginations and those of Saatchi and Saatchi. Fighting the Labour party on defence is not so much a case of looking for Achilles heel as of wandering into Achilles' tent and finding him busily butchering himself.
The people have a deep-rooted understanding of the need for defence. There is substantial support for the central core of these Estimates, the maintenance of a spending programme designed to equip our forces with the most modern equipment and a demonstration of our support for our NATO allies through commitments.


NATO is a collection of free nations. That is its greatest strength, but also its greatest weakness. Should one partner lose confidence in its role and leave or minimise its commitment, as it must remain entitled to do, the alliance could collapse. It is this weakness that is played upon by our enemies. Arguments directed to reducing our will to defend ourselves and to ridiculing our capacity to do so are designed to hasten the day when we say no to our allies. On that day will begin to crumble the walls of the NATO alliance that have safeguarded the peace in Europe for nigh on 40 years.
I do not suggest that those who are sincerely concerned with disarmament and arms spending throughout the world necessarily desire the consequences of such action. However, I wish that occasionally they would see their policies through and look at the lessons of history for the likely result of their views. The clearest lesson of history is that weapons do not begin wars—rations do. Nations attack when they see an opportunity for success, not failure. The easiest way to encourage war is to show disinclination to defend and offer a dance of success to the enemy. These Estimates are welcome because they demonstrate clearly our commitment to NATO, our understanding of the balance of peace and our concern with security and defence.
What of the cost, about which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) spoke? The cost of defence is high, but those who compare the cost of our spending on defence with that on social services are making the wrong comparisons. Do not make that comparison, but compare the cost of defending the peace with that of the cost of war. The cost of peace may be high, but the cost of war would be catastrophic.
It seems that, on the Labour Benches, those words are no longer falling on deaf ears. If we are to believe our morning newspapers, those who contest the leadership of the Labour party are busily examining their naval estimates for a view on defence policy. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has gone so far as to ask that the party learn the opinions of ordinary people on defence and disarmament, although it appears that others, such as the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) do not take much heed.
The message is clear from the Conservative Benches. The Government already have the ear of the people on defence and disarmament. While the people are faced by an enemy determined to add immeasurably to its superiority in conventional and nuclear arms, the people will support these defence Estimates and the policy that they suggest.
I wish to suggest a way for the Government not only to have the ear of the people but to capture their heart as well. I speak with feeling here for the ycung people of my constituency, for I am the youngest Member ever to represent any part of Bury, North. We have, we hope, full and useful lives to lead, and I mean no d:srespect as I look round the House. We have our future before us and we are fighting for it. We seek peace as keenly as the hon. Member for Hillsborough, but he is misguided when he discusses unilateral disarmament as he does. His suggestion that in some way our example in unilateral disarmament will be followed is, alas, the fairy tale to which he referred. Our example would do nothing.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that merely because we have these weapons it is somehow the democratic right of

other nations to have them as well. Perhaps he could explain to us how, if we renounce our weapons, it would suddenly not become the democratic right of other nations to have those weapons, and how we could force those other nations no longer to possess those weapons or to disarm. The fallacy is that in some way our example could do some good. The use of our example in unilateral disarmament has been shown before, when we gave up chemical weapons, but were not followed by the Soviet Union. Our unilateral nuclear disarmament would not be followed by the Soviet Union either.
While young people in my constituency and the country seek a vision for the future, we turn to this Government for extra hope. I ask the Government to see in the concern of young people for disarmament an expression of concern for the vision of the future that we want. While we accept that the price of peace is to be ever prepared for the war that we shall never start, while we accept that defence is bought only dearly, we also say that for those who spend much on defence there is a consequent responsibility to do much for peace.
It is the most earnest desire expressed by my constituents that while they understand and support the need for defence and spending on it, they also desire that we apply ourselves as vigorously as we can to our aim of using our strength to promote, encourage and advance the concept of the balanced reduction of all arms and all arms spending.
There has surely never been a better time than this for all nations to begin that process, as nations' economies throughout the world groan under the excessive demands of arms spending, and especially as the Soviet Union faces economic collapse if it continues those policies of defence spending which make ours seem trivial.
We shall not negotiate from weakness, but our defence policy in the Estimates before us will ensure in time that our strength with our allies against the Soviet bloc will be such that we can begin to use that as the great basis for peace. Let us try not just to capture the minds and sound judgment of our people—we already have that. Let us begin our crusade to capture the emotions of the people. That is what it depends on. Let us appeal to their imagination and vision of the future. We can do so by devising a policy which on the one hand shows our determination to be strong and free and on the other offers the open hand of friendship and negotiation.
Our people want to see ahead to the success of the policies before us. They want to be shown how eventually the strength that is represented here will be used to reduce the arms collections of the world. We must crusade for a true peace, not based on the sincere but naive beliefs of unilateral disarmament, but on the sound basis: of the defence policy before us.
There is a saying that from those to whom much is given much is expected. Much is given to the Government in the way of cash for defence, and I am confident, as I am sure my hon. Friends are, that in turn we shall see much from the Government in the way of effort for true, genuine and permanent peace.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Those hon. Members who, to put it as modestly as I can, have returned here not for the first but perhaps, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), for the umpteenth time, find it extremely intriguing to assess the new


Parliament as we listen, as we have today, to a series of fascinating speeches, not least that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt).
All hon. Members reveal their prejudices in the House. Today, those prejudices have been clothed with a certain elegance and wit which always makes them acceptable, even if they express views diametrically opposed to those of the listener. If hon. Members, like my hon. Friend, continue to speak as they have today, I am sure that they will not only enlighten and enliven our debates, but will make speeches to which we shall listen with pleasure.
The serious business of the evening is the defence Estimates. I begin by referring briefly to a personal experience that I shared with the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin). He told us earlier that he was on HMS Formidable off Japan when the atomic bomb was dropped. He entertained us by reading a letter that he wrote to his parents on that occasion. I happened to be at an RAF station in Palestine when the atomic bomb was dropped, and I am sure that I also wrote to my parents but, alas, the letter has not survived.
The House may be interested to know that I was terribly concerned about the awful power of that weapon and I realised then, young as I was, how it completely and dramatically altered human affairs in a most violent and incredible way. I tried to persuade the young pilots who were flying with me that that was so and my distinct recollection, so different perhaps from that of the right hon. Gentleman, is that they were completely uninterested. They just wanted to get on with the war and fly. Perhaps that is the character of young men. I had a subsequent, perhaps more relevant, experience in 1963 when I visited the museum in Hiroshima in which the Japanese showed what happened when the atomic bomb was dropped. Shortly after that, I also visited Nagasaki.
My recollection of the election campaign is that this was the one really serious argument that challenged us on the platform as the young people who came to our public meetings felt—and often thought—profoundly about it. It would be folly for any of us, whatever our views, not to recognise the depth of those feelings. Indeed, I share the feeling that dropping the atomic bomb was a reflection of the lunacy of the human race. I must therefore ask myself whether the keeping of such weapons is not also an aspect of the lunacy or perversity of the human race. And so it is. The possession of nuclear weapons is a terrifying paradox—offering apparent safety but enormous risk—which the human race has not yet learned to live with or to accept in toto. I believe that we may have to live with that paradox for at least a century.
We may ask today whether one such weapon is ever likely to be used. I believe that the probability against that is very high. Will more than one be used? Again, I think not. The effect on human beings of such a devastating action, whoever takes it and wherever the bomb explodes, would be so profound as to halt us all in our tracks and lead us to review most fundamentally whatever policies had led us to such a decision. The generals and the war colleges discuss the possibility of a first strike in which 500 or 600 of these awe-inspiring weapons would be launched by one continent against another. I believe that the odds against that—thank heaven—are enormously long.
Nevertheless, there are questions that we must ask. The main question is whether the shock administered to the

brokers of national and military power by Hiroshima and Nagasaki will last a full century. I believe that it will. Naturally, that is the hope and prayer of all hon. Members. In that century, the human race will have bought, most expensively, time in which to create the only conditions that will ever enable the major powers to agree on a realistic and effective reduction of nuclear arms.
The essential condition is one that we recognise in all areas of human controversy, not least the most serious and dangerous — the condition of confidence and trust between those who negotiate on these matters. Where there is no confidence and no trust, there will be neither unilateral nor multilateral disarmament. The tension, the risk and the paradox will continue and we shall have to live with it until the human race learns to create conditions of confidence and trust.
What are the greatest dangers in this situation? First, as has been mentioned, there is the risk that we shall allow the technological burden to cripple our societies. We already know something of this because the cost of each new phase of technological development is exponential, doubling every two or three years for every society that supports major and complex weapon systems.
Secondly, there is the risk that we shall define as a major western or national interest, in defence of which we are prepared to use this awe-inspiring power something which in the light of history will prove not to have been such a major national or western interest. That is a great danger. It is a question of historical judgment.
Thirdly, we might develop technology of such awe-inspiring sophistication to defend ourselves that it virtually takes control. As the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) said, it could make a mistake. We must develop defences against all such contingencies. Moreover, we must recognise that such defences will require, in the most critical and sensitive areas, discussions and co-operation with those who oppose them.

Mr. Boyes: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is underlining my premise that the biggest danger is that we might have a nuclear war as a result of a technological breakdown. The hon. Gentleman is now saying that we must safeguard against that eventuality. How quickly and by what means can we safeguard against that? His argument is leading us to the point at which it is almost impossible to do that.

Mr. Lloyd: I would be the last to underestimate the risks. There can be no doubt that they are profound. Only confidence and trust between human beings will enable the necessary processes to continue. Only that will take us to a stage at which, mercifully, nuclear weapons will be seen by all sides to be no longer necessary and a major hazard which the human race inflicted on itself for the best part of a century. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I am pessimistic about the rate at which that change can be achieved. All history tells us that human beings remain suspicious, pursue power, and do not recognise the dangers until they have paid an enormous price for their folly. Perhaps this time, with two world wars this century behind us, and with a clear knowledge of the price of even a conventional war, we might just have the wisdom to break through.
However, I do not believe that from that argument one goes on to support unilateralism or anything so stupid. What is so tragic about the CND movement is that one can respect its heart but not its head. Peace is an objective, not


a policy. That is the important distinction. The human race must take on its folly. Without mutual trust, no reduction of nuclear or any other arms will be effected or sustained, whatever CND or any other group say or do.
The fourth risk should not be overlooked. There are planners and those who examine the whole complex of military, civil and foreign affairs. They will plan for the wrong circumstances. Those who were alive at the beginning of the second world war know that, for about 18 months, the generals, the admirals and the air marshals were fighting the first world war. They fought the war that they envisaged. Their imaginations were incapable of jumping to a post-Maginot line war. So it will be again. The test will be for our imaginations to conceive what the circumstances are, on seeing them, defining them, on attaching the proper risk to them, and in so doing making it clear to our opponents, whom we hope at that time will be less opposed to us than before, what the real risks are. They must do the same to us. That is why there is an overwhelming demand for frankness between those who discuss these matters and exercise power at the highest level.
We must concede at least the possibility — I know that this will stretch the House's imagination — that value systems locked in mortal combat, as those of the West and East now are, will, we hope, win or lose, without the physical destruction of vast numbers of human beings who defend and believe in them and the countries that they inhabit. It is a far-fetched suggestion but it is possible that, in 50 years' time, the human race will fight its battles by dealing with the DNA code in a way that is almost inconceivable today. That is my view of this, the greatest paradox of our times.
A few days ago, in a question to the Prime Minister, I mentioned the interesting subject of arms trade and its definition. I take this opportunity to expand on that subject. The document on which I rely is an interesting one. I have not heard it mentioned in House before, although doubtless it has been mentioned. It is produced for the United States Congress, and it is entitled "World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers", and it is the product of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. I happen to have the 1980 volume here, but I took my figures from the 1981 volume. It contains very interesting and disturbing figures. I shall give the House one or two of those figures and put some questions to my hon. Friend.
The United States is often pilloried as the great capitalist, imperialist warmonger with military and industrial complex out of control. That malignant view of the United States is totally demolished by these figures. Between 1976 and 1980, Soviet arms exports to the whole world totalled $36 billion. The most tragic aspect of that is that $32·9 billion went to developing countries, and of that figure $11 billion went to Africa, from the Soviet Union alone. The front-line states received $3·24 billion worth of arms from the Soviet Union. As I said the other day, United Kingdom exports to the same countries—Mozambique, Angola, Botswana, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe — totalled $1 billion. That is a large and substantial sum.
Let me compare that sum with the figures in the defence Estimates. The United Kingdom figures for the years 1977 to 1980 amounted to only $370 million, and for the years 1977 to 1982 it was $698 million. We know that statisticians have different definitions which produce

different results, and that in arms trade it is difficult to obtain accurate information, but the discrepancy is large — between $1,000 million for four years, and the maximum figure that I get from our figures of $698 million for five years.
Before I leave this subject, I want to give the House an idea of what that means in terms of threat, destabilisation and military destruction. The total weapon systems supplied to Africa in that period were as follows: tanks —from the Soviet Union 2,010 out of a total of 3,250; anti-aircraft artillery — 1,500 pieces out of a total of 2,300; field artillery-2,600 out of a total of 3,900; armoured personnel carriers— 3,200 out of a total of 5,000; supersonic combat aircraft, probably one of the most deadly weapons of today —770 from the Soviet Union out of a total of 930; subsonic, rather less-115 out of 150; other aircraft, where the West scores —Soviets only 85 out of 495; helicopters — 215 out of 520. The final figure was not revealed in our figures; and was obtained only by delving into the American figures; missiles, again one of the most devastating weapons of military balance today —5,390 supplied by the Soviet Union out of a total of 5,600.
We read much about South Africa's intention to destabilise the surrounding territories. What was supplied to South Africa by the United States, France, Italy and others in that period? A mere $460 million. That is 4 per cent. of Soviet supplies to Africa, 35 per cent. of its supplies to the front-line states and 14 per cent. of the total arms imported by front-line states. Who is destabilising whom?
We all know that most of those countries are virtually bankrupt. They cannot pay their bills and have no foreign exchange. They are in great difficulties, and cannot even pay the pensions of British people who worked there and who now live here. Yet those countries can apparently spend $1 billion on arms in four years. But are they spending it, or are we paying the bill? I must have an answer to that question tonight. Who is paying the bill? Is it the United Kingdom? If not, where are they getting the money from? If they are getting it from somewhere else, can they still make the same case for aid that they make so pleadingly — and perhaps in some circumstances, so correctly? I suspect that they cannot. That is my main point.
However one considers the issue, it cannot be described as being in Britain's interests. We do not want to destabilise southern Africa or to assist those who wish to do so.
On a personal note, I had the great privilege some months ago to visit Delville Wood on the Somme. I commend it to those hon. Members who have never been there. There, lying in that beautiful but sad place, are 15,000 South Africans from the South African brigade who died on the Somme for freedom. Let us never forget it.

Sir Hector Monro: I am pleased to speak after my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Lloyd), who made some telling points at the end of his speech about supplies of arms to Africa. However, my main purpose in speaking is to give my total support, of course, to the statement introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. That also means total support for his policy of nuclear deterrence.
It was obvious to all in May and June that defence policy played a most important part in the election campaign. The role that my right hon. Friend played in stating his views on the nuclear deterrent, both sincerely and clearly, was obviously a major factor in the victory that followed. Of course we all want multilateral disarmament. However, until the Russians show some sign of starting to disarm, or even of ending the increase in their armaments, it would be foolhardy in the extreme to contemplate weakening our defences in any way. Therefore, we must certainly increase our armaments as long as Russia does the same. We must also update them so that we do not fall behind in technological knowledge and skill.
I was fascinated by what my hon. Friend the Member for Havant said about the Hiroshima museum. I had the valuable experience of flying my aircraft over Hiroshima and Nagasaki not long after the bombs had been dropped. I decided there and then that that must never happen again to any country. That is why it is right for the Western world to maintain its policy of nuclear deterrence, because no country will drop a nuclear bomb knowing that similar destruction will inevitably follow for it. Therefore, I believe that our policy is right and must be maintained.
No defence debate at this time can be held without every hon. Member rightly remarking on the brilliance of our service men in the Falklands. I refer not only to the campaign, but to their work since last June and to all the magnificent things that they have done since then. The Government have made the right decision about the Falklands. I may raise a tiny eyebrow about the new airport, because, having been to Stanley airport, I think that it might well have been extended eastwards, thus making a satisfactory airport for wide-bodied aircraft. Difficult as it might have been, it might have proved satisfactory.
I very much doubt that over the past year or so the Royal Air Force has received sufficient praise for its brilliant airmanship in conducting the air bridge between Britain and the Falklands. Flight refuelling requires a high measure of skill. Our Hercules and Victor pilots deserve our warm appreciation, as do the Phantom and Harrier pilots who flew out to the Falklands. It is no mean feat to take a single seater aircraft with many stages of flight refuelling on a long flight to the south Atlantic. The pilots deserve all praise for their efforts.
Last Friday the House debated the subject of youth. I spoke about the value to our young people of the Territorial Army, the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, of which I am fortunate enough to be an honorary air commodore. I believe that young men and women who volunteer for reserve service receive the most excellent training. It is worth while joining our reserve forces for a host of reasons—the Outward Bound activities, the discipline that they receive in the proper spirit, the comradeship and because they know that they are doing a valuable and important job. Everything that the Government can do to promote service in the reserve forces is well worth while. I am delighted that His Royal Highness Prince Charles may have accelerated that idea in the minds of many people by his speech yesterday.
I am particularly pleased with the progress of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. There are plenty of recruits and the

squadrons are at a high state of training and are ready for aerodrome defence. I should like to give a few words of encouragement to Ministers. They should do all that they can to provide the best possible equipment—transport and radio equipment—and plenty of it. Young recruits like to see new equipment and to get their teeth into learning how to use it as effectively as possible.
I hope that in the long run—my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) would have made this point had he been called to speak in the debate today; he hopes to speak tomorrow—we will again have Royal Auxiliary Air Force squadrons in a flying role. We know that this takes place in the Royal Hong Kong Auxiliary Air Force, which uses light aircraft, but we hope that soon we shall have helicopter squadrons for Army cooperation and other valuable roles.
I should like to make one constituency point. I am interested in the royal ordnance factories and the suppliers of explosives and pyrotechnics. As this is an area of high unemployment, I hope that the Ministry of Defence will be giving as many orders as possible to these factories. Last year a consultative document was published on the future of the royal ordnance factories. What progress has been made in the timetable for their future? Whatever happens, I hope that they develop and will continue their employment and that pension rights will be safeguarded.
Throughout the history of the Royal Air Force and the Royal Flying Corps before it, we were late in delivering our aircraft. It takes much longer to develop modern aircraft from new designs. This applies not only to air frames and engines but to the sophisticated equipment that they now contain. I hope that the Government will make every effort to press on as quickly as possible with the development and flying trials of aircraft that are at present in the pipeline and will be available for squadron service in the years ahead.
Throughout the years that the Government have been in power, "quality" in defence has been the watchword. I hope that we shall do everything possible to maintain the quality of training and equipment. That is the best way to provide our fine men and women in the services with the equipment that they need. The contents of the statement augur well to achieve that in the future.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Bernard Conlan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have called three speakers from the Conservative Benches in succession. You have not given Labour Members the opportunity to make a contribution.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Obviously the Chair must take into account the attendance in the Chamber and the length of time hon. Members have been waiting to take part in the debate. It is a two-day debate and hon. Members will have the opportunity to address the House tomorrow.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: I pay tribute to those hon. Members who made their maiden speeches in the debate — the hon. Members for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley), for Corby (Mr. Powell), for Nottingham, North (Mr. Ottaway), and for


Bury, North (Mr. Burt). They were all confident and impressive, and were warm in their tributes to their predecessors. Those tributes were especially appreciated by the Opposition because they refferred to many old comrades. Those former Members were much valued in the House and are sorely missed.
Although some of the maiden speeches were controversial, they were generally eve n-handed. The hon. Member for Corby warned the Government defence team that they may yet face a financial crunch. The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Ir verclyde expressed concern about the royal ordnance factories in her constituency and said that she hoped that jobs would be preserved. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North expressed authoritative and heartful concern about the delay in reaching agreement on the design for a type 23 frigate. The concern and fears that they expressed are well founded.
Some hon. Members were over-generous in their praise of the defence statement, the Secretary of State and his colleagues. We all know that this is not the Secretary of State's White Paper—his will come next year and the year after. The Opposition await both with great interest. I shall say more about possible developments later. We know the right hon. Gentleman well enough to know that he will wish to make an impression on his Department. We suspect that he will face some problems that can be resolved only by the Department getting its way or the right hon. Gentleman getting his way.
Any assessment of the defence statement must turn on our judgment of the defence policies that it sets out. How far are they affordable, especially Trident, with the soaring cost of defence technology? How far do they pursue less nuclear-reliant strategy, especially in relation to cruise? Nothing has come more strongly from the debate today than the concern about cruise, and that was not expressed only by Opposition Members. How far are the policies acceptable to public opinion—not only within Britain, but within the NATO Alliance? How far are they in line with current thinking on arms control?
That brings me to the question of priorities. How far are the Government's defence priorities balanced, sustainable and in line with NATO's needs? How far do they provide for the right kind of leadership in the 80s? What will they look like then, at the end of the lifetime of this Government, and how will the Prime Minister and, in particular, the Secretary of State for Defence be viewed by the people at that time?
First is the question of affordability. The Treasury has allotted almost £16 billion for defence in the current financial year to pay for the well-known components of the independent strategic nuclear force, the defence of the United Kingdom homeland, the maritime capability, a major land and air contribution on the European mainland and, for the first time, a full acknowledgement of an additional item, non-NATO contributions out of area, including forces for the Falklands.
There must, however, be doubt, even among Conservative Members — such doubt was expressed, interestingly in his maiden speech by the hon. Member for Corby—about whether the MoD will get its £17 billion-plus next year, not to mention the £21 billion to £22 billion in 1987–88. There are doubts about the adequacy of the funding as projected because the present cash limits have been set using assumptions about future rate of inflation and the cost of military hardware which look decidedly

optimistic. Many analysts believe that the pressures on the defence budget are such that another major defence review will be inevitable in the lifetime of this Government.
The escalation of equipment costs is horrifying, even for relatively minor items such as torpedoes and helicopters. I am talking not of big systems but about the penny packets, as it were. We are already faced with £1 billion systems even when we consider those. There is no way arithmetically that we can contain real increases in costs of that order in our present defence policies. Indeed, I do not know of anyone in the Alliance, members of the legislatures of the member nations—I am referring to people versed in these matters, people who sit on the appropriate committees of their parliaments—who take any other view.
Unlike them, we are taking on Trident as well. We are trying to do what is not possible and we shall soon see the effects of that on, for example, the Navy. That fear was expressed not just from the Opposition Benches but by Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), speaking persuasively and authoritatively for the Liberals, agreed, and as much of his argument turned on the Trident decision, I will now consider that.
When the financial crunch comes and a further defence review is undertaken, the Secretary of State, if he is still in office, will have to address himself realistically to the question where and how best this country can contribute to NATO. Much discussion along these lines has already taken place. It has focused on whether there should be a continental or maritime emphasis, as the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) underlined in a series of typically provocative questions. When the next debate on priorities takes place, the United Kingdom will have to face the NATO-wide preference for a strengthening of non-nuclear capabilities. The Government, unlike the Opposition, have failed to recognise, much less adopt, the radical new thinking on nuclear and conventional nonnuclear strategy that is emerging within the NATO establishment.
Let us consider the less-nuclear-reliance strategy that is being advocated by some member nation Parliaments and by some professionals within the NATO establishment, starting with SACEUR, the supreme commander, General Rogers. Let us consider what they have in mind and what they are now actively pursuing.
Earlier this year senior NATO officials warned the countries of the Western Alliance that they had become alarmingly dependent on nuclear weapons for their defence. There was no sign of such concern on the Conservative Benches. According to General Rogers, the only way out of this danger is for NATO to improve its conventional forces and to spend more on new high-technology weapons, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) argued in his powerful opening speech on behalf of the Opposition.
That thesis has been argued for more than a year by General Rogers and other influential Americans such as Senator Sam Nunn, and it is beginning to be discussed within NATO. The defence Ministers were expected to tackle it when they met in Brussels during the general election campaign. These new ideas received their first non-governmental European endorsement in May in the shape of a report from a group of military and foreign exports, including our former Chief of Defence Staff, Lord Carver.
The tendency which I have described has focused inevitably on cruise. Last month legislators from NATO countries were sharply divided on the deployment of nuclear missiles in Europe. Their forum was the spring meeting of the North Atlantic Assembly. During the closed session of the assembly's political committee, seven out of 10 speakers opposed deployment. It is noteworthy that no Minister or Conservative Back Bencher has opposed it during this debate. That demonstrates that Conservative Members are out of tune with thinking within the Alliance and are out of step with their fellow parliamentarians.
Parliaments of at least six NATO countries have shown varying levels of disagreement with NATO's deployment policy. In open debate, NATO's dual-track decision to go ahead with deployment while negotiations continued came in for sharply contrasting comments. There was considerable support for the view that the United States should not demand that Europe install INF weapons. Their benefit was seen as marginal yet their intended deployment has already split the Alliance.
These developments mean that we must turn inevitably to arms control. The sheer expense of the Trident programme is not the only reason why it is being questioned. The programme will come in for increasing scrutiny even from the Government. If headway has been made in the arms negotiations at Geneva, either at START or at the INF talks, a stage may be reached when the question of taking account of the United Kingdom's warheads can no longer be evaded. It is certain that there would be all manner of objections from Europeans and Americans alike if in any reassessment of defence priorities, national elements in the United Kingdom's programme such as Trident or provision for the Falklands, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) argued, were seen as receiving preference at the expense of the United Kingdom's contributions not merely to NATO but to what NATO is now increasingly requesting for its non-nuclear conventional forces.
The Government claim in the first page of the defence statement that
We must do all in our power to reach agreement with the Soviet Union on the limitation and reduction of armaments.
In spite of Mr. Andropov's latest proposal, the Prime Minister and the Government continue to reject the Soviets' insistence that British nuclear forces should be included in the missile talks. This leads the British Government clearly to favour arms control while refusing to accept any limits on the national nuclear deterrent.
The British Government have made a strong case for excluding British forces from the INF talks in Geneva, but only by implicitly acknowledging the equally strong argument that they should be negotiable in START. We were told by the Secretary of State this afternoon that if there is a substantial breakthrough at START, the Government will not stand aside beyond an irreducible minimum. However, his response to the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), who reminded him about Britain's limited negotiating position, means that there will be no negotiating in good faith by the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State knows that. He knows the real position, and he could not have made that statement this afternoon in good faith. [Hots. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] He knows Britain's negotiating

position, based on Polaris, and on the intended replacement force. He knows that he cannot talk about irreducible minimums and lay down limits. When he makes such statements he cannot do so in good faith.
If Britain is not to appear to be stressing the importance, as the Secretary of State did, of controlling the arms of every nuclear power except itself, it must work out what part to play in the arms control process and then be prepared to offer something positive and meaningful, no matter how limited it may be. However, the Secretary of State offered nothing this afternoon. If the Prime Minister is not to appear indifferent to arms control, as she has done this year, she must be as ready as Chancellor Kohl, the Dutch Prime Minister and the Italian Foreign Minister were in March to express public concern to President Reagan about the then deadlocked Geneva talks. Why was she silent when even republican senators were adding their voices?
That brings me to leadership in the eighties, because the challenge to political leaders in this decade is as great as, if not greater than, ever. We must try to reduce our reliance on nuclear weaponry. We must improve and deploy more technically competent conventional forces. It is no good Conservative Members sneering—

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: So that we may get the flavour of the hon. Gentleman's speech, will he tell the House whether he is backing increased expenditure on conventional forces or a reduction in conventional forces in line with our NATO allies?

Mr. Duffy: I shall develop that argument later in my speech. I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman back in the Chamber, because I have sat through the entire debate and his was the only nasty speech that I heard.
Britain must improve and deploy more technically competent conventional forces. We must re-examine priorities on the basis of defence co-operation and burden-sharing, which is the first step in my answer to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend). We must reverse the sombre international scene in which relations between the super-powers are strained, contact scarce and great resources continue to escalate the arms race. We must, so far as it rests with us, ensure that the Geneva negotiations yield positive results if a constructive dialogue between East and West is to result.
The Prime Minister's record does not encourage us to believe that she will rise to those challenges, yet during the election campaign she attacked Labour's plans for nuclear disarmament and accused the Labour party of advocating one-sided disarmament. She ignores the extent to which she is exposed to the charge of confrontational re-armament. She ignores the extent to which no first use of nuclear weapons, and the requirement for battlefield nuclear weapons, have ceased to be fringe issues and increasingly occupy the minds of orthodox defence planners and committed NATO supporters.
By giving this debate a powerful push, the Labour party is pointing out the possibilities of conventional arms, and perhaps furthering the cause of peace, with no help from Conservative Members. The Prime Minister, who is preoccupied with getting more and more nuclear weapons, neglects conventional defence and may be making nuclear war more, not less, likely. The debate within the Labour movement has undoubtedly spilled over into the country at large and is responsible for the discussion on pages 8


and 9 of the defence statement. Hon. Members will find no such discussion in the defence statements of previous years. The Labour party is responsible for the Government addressing themselves to the debate on less nuclear-reliant strategies and alternative approaches. They have had to face up to nuclear disarmament. That has been confirmed in the debate, especially by the hopeful and immensely stimulating speeches on the nuclear threat by my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes).
There are three ways in which peace is kept in Europe —deterrence, detente and reassurance. The last one is the most important — not deterrence or detente, important as they are, but reassurance It is achieved only by creating self-confidence and mutual trust among the NATO countries. The conventional forces in Europe are the linchpin of reassurance. They can acquire greater deterrent value thanks to modern technology. That is another part of my answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath.
The possibilities of non-nuclear weapon systems in the flashpoint battlefield environment illustrates the increasing potential for non-nuclear systems to take over many of the military missions at present covered by nuclear systems. Whatever the Prime Minister or her supporters may say, that shows the credibility of a less nuclear-reliant strategy for the Alliance. It is Conservative Members who are behind the times.
I refer now to the future defence strategy that even Conservative Members will have to support when they catch up with the times, which either the Secretary of State or, more likely, his successor will have to bring to the House after the next defence review. Scarcely any section of the press, much less the Secretary of State in the election campaign—his role in that was scurrilous—acknowledged the extent to which Labour has paved the way for a coherent framework in military, strategic and political terms for our future defence policy. Labour seeks to assess defence needs against the background of overall Alliance strategy and objectives. A greater precision in Alliance priorities is also required if we are to provide for the most efficient use of increasingly scarce resources. We are unlikely to get it while we have a Frime Minister who insists on our country maintaining the appearance of making an all-round contribution to the Alliance. Therefore, the essence of the task that faces the right hon. Gentleman is how far he is prepared to stand up to the Prime Minister in opposing that policy of hers to try to continue to behave like a great power and do everything that great powers are still doing—in other words go on making an all-round contribution to the Alliance.
The biggest problem in Alliance planning, given the explosion in costs of defence technology, is resource allocation. Even the United States, with all its resources, is having to consider more burden-sharing. The right hon. Gentleman knows that his American colleagues are expecting, in America's out-of-area activities, especially its rapid deployment force, more burden-sharing, particularly by the United Kingdom. There must be more burden-sharing within the Alliance. There must be more assigned roles on the basis of the division of tasks. Thus, the United Kingdom should avoid incremental and duplicating systems such as Trident. The same logic in reordering NATO priorities points inescapably to a strengthened conventional defence posture by the United

Kingdom, preferably in the maritime role. That argument has been championed almost exclusively in Parliament by Labour Members on both Front and Back Benches.

Mr. Critchley: No.

Mr. Duffy: Yes. The published material is there. The hon. Gentleman knows it. The same Labour Members of Parliament have also done most to create the political will for less nuclear-reliant strategies as well as disarmament. Their manifest concern is reflected in the discussion on pages 8 and 9 of the defence statement—it is not the concern of Conservative Members. Labour Members in assigned parliamentary party rooms have long been monitoring the technological developments in non-nuclear systems that promised to undermine militarily Labour's political status. This new thinking, especially on the possibilities of non-nuclear weapons systems in the flashpoint battlefield environment, as published material confirms, was available to Labour spokesmen long before it found expression, only recently, in other quarters.
Labour will pursue a non-nuclear defence policy on the basis of conventional priorities rather than apocalyptic choice. If the Conservative Government insist on an all-round, instead of balanced, contribution by the Alliance, it is certain that the Secretary of State or his successor must one day bring a further defence review before the House. By the end of their second term, the Conservatives may have reduced the share of national resources alloted to defence as part of an across-the-board assault on public spending. They will probably have put Britain's strategic nuclear capacity—Trident and, perhaps, Polaris—into the arms negotiations pot. They will certainly have committed themselves to a boosting of conventional forces within a broadly based programme to reduce NATO's reliance on nuclear weapons. In short, they will have adopted much of the defence programme that the Secretary of State was concerned to ridicule and dismiss. They will not have faced up to what was objectively and properly argued during the recent election campaign. They will have adopted a defence programme which during the recent election campaign was maliciously distorted and misrepresented on all sides, especially by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Ian Stewart): After that speech by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) it is not surprising that defence was one of the main issues which lost the Labour party support during the last general election.

Mr. Boyes: That is not true.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman used fine language about defence strategy, but that is no cloak for the nonsense of the Labour party's contradictions in its defence policy. He spoke of leadership in the 1980s. We can be certain that we shall not get any leadership from the Labour party, because its members are going in opposite directions. If ever a debate was designed to throw up the internal contradictions of Labour party policies, it is this one.
This afternoon, after the introduction by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in a farsighted and profound


speech—[Interruption.]—I was glad to hear my hon. Friends give a broad welcome to the White Paper and the strategy that we have made out.

Mr. Conlan: The hon. Gentleman must not blush.

Mr. Stewart: I turn from the embarrassing subject of the official Opposition Front Bench to the more pleasant duty of congratulating the maiden speakers who have taken part in the debate today. I am glad to begin the roll of their names with the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). It would say nothing for him if I were to remark that he was a great improvement on his predecessor, so I will say more than that. We were delighted to hear his moving remarks about the stricken territory that he represents. I join in his tribute to our armed forces and the UDR in the important job that they undertake in difficult and dangerous circumstances in that troubled region.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) took us on a historical tour of the 1930s and it is a pity that some hon. Gentlemen who were to speak later did not hear his telling comments. He spoke also of the airfields in his constituency and of the Royal Air Force's important contribution to the second world war.
My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) made a charming speech. She represents an ancient Stewart stronghold. About 100 years ago Greenock was represented by my great grandfather. I was pleased, therefore, to be able to visit the Clyde a few weeks ago and to see her constituency. I am sure that she will represent it very effectively.

Mr. Conlan: The hon. Gentleman should get on with it. He only has 25 minutes.

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) spoke effectively about our conventional capabilities. I am sure that he will serve his constituents equally effectively. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Ottaway) has personal experience from his service in the Navy. We listened attentively to what he said about the importance of airborne early warning and the close-in weapon system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) spoke about the value of our defence and deterrent posture in the preservation of peace.
My hon. Friend the Minster of State for Defence Procurement will speak more generally tomorrow about procurement. I shall not, therefore, try to answer in detail some of the points that were raised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) mentioned the royal ordnance factories, and they will figure in the Minister of State's remarks.
The hon. Members for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston) and my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Lloyd) raised the subject of the sale of arms, including some of the wider issues involved.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) spoke about some of the details of our procurement programme. I shall not be able to pursue those matters further tonight, because of the shortage of time.
My responsibilities are largely related to ship procurement, which was mentioned by a number of hon.
Members during the debate, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Pink). I hope that he will find some of my later remarks relevant to his speech.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned the need for a primary trainer to replace the current Jet Provost. Among the likely contenders could be the Pilatus PC7, which is designed in Switzerland, another trainer aircraft from Brazil, a new design by Fairchild of the United States and the Firecracker, which is produced by Desmond Norman in the Isle of Wight. If a foreign design were chosen, it is likely that the aircraft would be produced under licence in the United Kingdom.
Much of the debate has been, and will continue to be, about the nuclear issue. The hon. Members for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) spoke about it. They were soundly answered by a number of my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough and Horncastle and for Bury, North. In that context the remarks about Japan's experience during the second world war were brought into focus by the recollections of my hon. Friends the Members for Havant and for Dumfries.

Mr. Ashdown: Will the Minister concede that half of the case that suggests that the possession of nuclear weapons by the United States caused the capitulation of Japan is not supported by the facts, and that it has now been proved that Japan had agreed to capitulate about three weeks before the nuclear weapon was used?

Mr. Stewart: I do not agree. The hon. Gentleman has already made a lengthy speech and I must leave it to get on with other matters.
A number of hon. Members who spoke today, in particular the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) and the hon. Member for Attercliffe, who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, referred to the cost of Trident and its effect on our conventional forces. The average cost to the defence budget of Trident over the period of procurement will be 3 per cent., and at its peak 6 per cent. The suggestion that by cancelling it it would be possible to secure a dramatic increase in our conventional forces does not square with the facts. The right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford questioned the figures given for the cost of Trident and said that he thought they must have escalated a great deal already. I draw his attention to paragraph 213 of the White Paper, which says that we will be using
the planned US facilities … for the initial preparation for service of our Trident missiles … We estimate that this decision will produce a net saving for the defence programme of several hundred millions of pounds in capital costs with equal, if not greater, additional savings in running costs over the life of the system.

Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman is concerned with statistics. The savings cannot possibly, in any circumstances, equal — the figure was not challenged — an increase of 15 per cent. in inflation costs and another 15 per cent. in exchange rates, making a 30 per cent. increase in all. That 30 per cent. of £7·5 billion equals over £2 billion.

Mr. Stewart: I was drawing attention to the fact that other factors are working to reduce the figures originally given. As the right hon. Gentleman has intervened again


on an arithmetical point, I shall point out that, when he was embarrassed by a former colleague of his quoting his commitment to the 3 per cent. increase in defence expenditure in 1978, he said that that was without a reduction in GNP of 15 per cent. in subsequent years. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is mixing up the GNP with industrial output, but that is a reflection of the precision that he brings to these questions.
Conventional forces have figured prominently in the debate, as they should. My hon. Friends the Members for Aldershot and Corby raised this in particular in connection with ships and the size of the fleet, and there were important contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend), for Gainsborough and Horncastle, for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde, for Portsmouth, South and for Nottingham, North.
I retired from the Royal Naval Reserve nearly 10 years ago because I could not continue the training when I became an hon. Member, so I have not been closely in touch with defence affairs during the intervening period. My chief impression, after that interval, is of the enormous scale of technological change that has taken place. This point was effectively made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North. The developments in electronic equipment and various weapon systems, communications, radar and so on are dramatic.
The hon. Member for Atterc liffe spoke about affordability. That must always be in the forefront of our minds. It is extremely important that we should always try to get value for money in the best possible way. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will tomorrow say something about our approach to procurement in those circumstances.
The main change has been in the development of the underwater threat. The figures in the White Paper show that in the eastern Atlantic the Warsaw pact outnumbers NATO in offensive mines by 26,030 to 850 and in submarines by 81 to 32. In 1982 the Warsaw pact brought into service nine new submarines, against only two in NATO. As a consequence, in our ship procurement programme we have introduced not only the mine countermeasures vessels and the new fleet minesweepers for use by the Royal Navy reserve, but also plans for the single role mine hunter, and in connection with the antisubmarine threat we have plans for the conventional submarine, the type 2400 and the type 23 frigate.
Part of the cost of the procurement and related expenditure in our budget is for research and development. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke about that earlier. I re-emphasise his point that the development part of our research and development budget is much more directly project-related than would perhaps normally be the case under such a heading in industry.
Another point that is worth stressing, and which can be seen on page 17 of volume 2 under the tables on equipment, is that we have tried to put more research effort out to industry. In the past four years we have been able to do that with increasing success. In the coming year extramural research and development is expected to be £1,400 million, as against only about £.500 million within the defence establishments. That development is particularly important and answers some of the criticisms that have been made about the high level of research and development. It is essential, as weapons and weapon systems become more sophisticated, that adequate

research and detailed development work upon them should be carried out to see that they are effective when they are brought into service.
I should now mention the departmental organisation and staffs which carry out the ship procurement process. Reporting direct to me for that function is the controller of the Navy, an admiral who is a member of the admiralty board—also sometimes referred to as the third sea lord. His function is to buy ships and equipment to meet the Navy's requirement.
The controller has charge of a large and complex organisation. Just under 10 per cent. of the staff are Royal Navy officers and ratings and the remainder are civilians, predominantly in technical and professional specialisations. Their task is to obtain capable and dependable equipment for the Navy on time and on the best terms that can be secured.
It is no less important that the structure of the organisation adapts to changing circumstances. More than 20 years have passed since the present structure was established with its ship and weapons departments, each under separate dirctor general reporting to the controller. The director-general of ships has, in effect, been responsible for the hull and propulsion of the ship and the director-general of naval weapons for weaponry, weapon systems and their integration. Therefore, I hope that the House will welcome the fact that a major reorganisation of the controllerate will come into effect on 1 August.

Mr. Fisher: Will the Minister reply to the debate? Substantive points have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), myself and other hon. Members.

Mr. Stewart: When I tried to respond to specific points earlier, I received only a babble and much barracking from Labour Members. Perhaps the Opposition are not interested in the important steps that the Government are taking to enhance the effectiveness of the fleet. In future, responsibility will be divided in principle between total warship systems viewed as integrated projects in their own right and the individual equipments, whether weapons or machinery, that form the parts of that system. Thus the entire ship is to be considered as a weapon system, in much the same way as aircraft have been considered for some time, while the principal components can be treated individually.
The two main arms of the restructured organisation will be headed by a deputy controller for warships and a deputy controller for warship equipments respectively. Complementary changes are being made to improve the arrangements on technical cost and financial analysis, estimating and forecasting. A further important innovation is the establishment of a future material projects naval division to provide the focal point for long-term technical programme planning and conceptual work on the future of warships and major equipment projects.

Mr. Dalyell: Do the Government accept that a quarter of the fleet is now bottled up in the south Atlantic? What does the NATO high command have to say about that? That is a serious question. There may be a satisfactory answer to it, but NATO's reaction to the facts that I gave should be included in the reply to any serious defence debate.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised various matters based on pure speculation. I have no intention of commenting further upon them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South spoke of the changing elements in the cost of a modern warship. A recent analysis of the cost of a type 22 frigate shows that about 17 per cent. is incurred on the hull and structure, 20 per cent. on the propulsion system and about 63 per cent. on achieving the required fighting capability. That, too, emphasises how important weapon systems are becoming in our warship procurement programme.
The hon. Member for Yeovil asked about the EH101 helicopter. We have made considerable progress in getting this important military and civil project under way. The programme of studies at Westland has been fully funded to ensure that essential design work is kept going while negotiations with the Italian Government continue. As is well known to the House, political uncertainty in Italy early this year and the recent general election there have delayed confirmation of a firm Italian commitment to the military version of the helicopter. We hope, however, to have the joint project in full development soon.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North referred to the design of the type 23 frigate and to counterclaims on behalf of a new design for a shorter, fatter ship known as the S90. Those claims have received a good deal of public comment lately, but the comment has been couched in terms of personalities rather than being based on the operational and technical aspects of the design, which are the points that Ministers will consider fully when reports and assessments are received from the Ministry and from the independent advisers who have been retained for the purpose.
A number of improvements in ship design have recently taken place, some resulting from lessons learnt in the Falklands conflict and others which were already in train. We are reducing the amount of flammable material in warships and trying to improve fire-resistant cabling. We are also replacing foam mattresses with sprung mattresses to reduce the risk of fire. Some redesigning is taking place with the introduction of better watertight doors and hatches, and further steps are being taken on damage control, with special reference to the spreading of fire and smoke.
Comments have been made about the unsuitability of aluminium in a ship's structure because it loses strength in fire. It is used only in type 21 frigates and is not being used in warships today.

Mr. Conlan: rose—

Mr. Stewart: I have many points to deal with.

Mr. Conlan: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the Minister giving way?

Mr. Stewart: Yes.

Mr. Conlan: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Can he comment on the obvious disagreement between the Minister of State for Defence Procurement and the design team at Bath about the design of future warships?

Mr. Stewart: Questions of that type can be considered only after the process that I have just described. I fail to see why we should have a considered debate on the subject

until we have all the facts and information. I gave way to the hon. Gentleman out of courtesy because he failed to catch your eye earlier, Mr. Speaker.
My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde asked about the type 2400. We hope to order the submarine later this year. Follow-on boats will be ordered from the middle of the decade, but no follow-on order is likely before 1985. Whenever possible, the submarines will be orderd by competitive tender and I cannot therefore promise to allocate them to any yard.
I should like to deal with the procurement process for ordering warships because there is sometimes misunderstanding about what is meant by an order for a new ship. Perhaps I can illustrate the point by referring to the type 2400 submarine. It began with an outline staff target six years ago in 1977. The first stage—concept work—took two years and included the general study of major characteristics, cost, complement and so on and development of the naval staff target. Next came the feasibility studies, which lasted about one and a half years. They produced greater detail on costs, weight, space, power and so on. Finally, there was the contract definition stage, which lasted about two and a half years, during which the preferred design was identified and detailed standards and procedures were defined. Enough detail was drawn up to present a contract to order the boat. During contract definition long lead items are ordered as necessary.
We are now reaching the point—about six years later —when we can place an order. It is a long process. Hon. Members asked when orders for the type 2400 can be placed. I can only say that orders will be placed in the relatively near future. I shall not give a specific date. The process of preparing, designing and defining the contract stage is important. It is only then that we can place an order for the first of class.
I do not accept comments that have been made outside the House and repeated several times inside that we are in danger of running down the number of our escorts to 40 ships by the end of the decade. That is not true. In the meantime, until the new ships that we have ordered come on stream we have extended temporarily the operational period of the Rothesay and Leander class frigates and extended the life of three Tribal class frigates.
Modernisation of the Royal Navy is continuing strongly. Last year we spent about £1,700 million on development and production of warships, their weapon systems, armaments and spares. There are now 38 ships on order for the Royal Navy—the aircraft carrier Ark Royal, three type 42 destroyers, eight type 22 frigates, four SSNs and various other smaller ships. The total cost of the ships on order is about £3,000 million. The Conservatives will be able to pay for that. If the Opposition's policies were followed, they would have no hope of paying for them. We shall order new—

Mr. Boyes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to listen to the Minister, but I cannot hear what he is saying because of the talking on the Conservative Benches.

Mr. Stewart: We have now made substantial commitments to strengthen the Royal Navy in the years ahead. That is an important part of our defence commitment, as contained in the White Paper, and I am


glad that hon. Members, at least on this side, realise the importance of what we are doing and have supported the White Paper that my right hon. Friend introduced.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motions relating to Members' Salaries (Expression of Opinion), Members' Salaries, Office, Secretarial and Research etc. Allowances, Parliamentary Expenses (Overnight Expenses), Parliamentary Expenses (Inner London Constituencies), Resettlement Grant, Travel (Members' Children), and Members' Pensions may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Members' and Ministers' Pay and Allowances

10 pm

Dr. Jeremy Bray: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is a point of order arising from your selection of amendments but referring to consequences.
The amendment that we understand the Leader of the House will recommend the House to accept, in the name of the hon. member for Poole (Mr. Ward), on Members' expenses—that is amemdment (b) to motion 4 —was tabled only today. It was reasonable for hon. Members to assume that the amendments incorporating the agreement widely reported in the press on Members' pay and allowances were those amendments in the name of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) to both motions 2 and 4, the first providing the increases in pay, and the second reducing the secretarial allowance from £13,000 to £11,000. The five amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Poole referred to the total of allowances remaining at £14,000, until yesterday, and therefore plainly did not incorporate the agreement proposed by the Government.
So three groups of amendments were tabled on secretarial allowances, relating to the motion of the Leader of the House, as amended by the amendment of the right hon. Member for Taunton, which would have been selected and divided on, whatever the outcome of the vote on the amendment of the right hon. Member for Taunton. However, as a consequence of the amendment now being tabled, which the Government tabled only today, none of the other amendments can be divided on.
To remedy the matter, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to accept a manuscript amendment to amendment (e) in the names of the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Lloyd), myself and other Members, so that the substance can be taken as an amendment by the hon. Member for Poole, and so divided on. This is a major question affecting a matter on which hon. Members have a strong view. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am listening to this very complicated point of order.

Dr. Bray: It is a question on which many hon. Members in all parties have a strong view—the proper equipment of themselves to perform their duties as Members. If that is ruled out as a result of the Government's quite unprincipled behaviour in tabling an amendment which appeared on the Order Paper only today, through a Back Bencher, the ability of the House to consider the matter will have been frustrated. I therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, to accept this manuscript amendment.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I received a large number of other manuscript amendments this evening. The House is faced with a major problem in dealing with the amendments that are already on the Order Paper, and I am unable to accept any manuscript amendments at this stage.

Mr. John McWilliam: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In yesterday's Order Paper amendment (b) stated:
leave out from 'should' to the end of line 14 and insert 'be raised so as to be £12,964 for the year ending 31st March 1984 and £14,000 for any subsequent year;'".
However, in today's Order Paper the figure of £14,000 has been reduced to £12,000. Do you not agree, Mr. Speaker, that that may have misled hon. Members? Would it not be perfectly reasonable to accept a manuscript amendment in this case, because the intention was not clear. and. indeed, has changed, according to the Order Paper. since yesterday?

Mr. Speaker: I understand the problem, but, as I have said, I have received a number of other manuscript amendments, and I am not anxious at this stage to make the situation any more complicated than it is. I think that the House feels that we should proceed with the amendments that I have selected.

Dr. Bray: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since this matter arises from the behaviour of the Leader of the House in changing the motion on the Order Paper between yesterday and today, can the right hon. Gentleman assist us in any way?

Mr. Speaker: That is for the Leader of the House to decide.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We came to see you this afternoon about motion No. 7 and your selection of amendments. You have kindly sent us a note saying that the amendment will now be called. I take it that it will be called.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gazumps me. My selection of amendments has been published and there is an addition. I have selected amendment (a) on page 439 to motion No. 7.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr John Biffen): I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, the salaries payable to Members of this House in respect of service on and after 13th June 1983 should be at the following yearly rates—

(1) £15,090 for Members not falling within paragraph (2); and
(2) £8,800 for Officers of this House and Members receiving a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 or a pension under section 26 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972.

I understand that with your agreement, Mr. Speaker, it may be convenient to discuss with it the following motions that stand in my name:
No. 3,
That, the salaries payable to Members of this House in respect of service on and after 13th June 1983 should be at the following yearly rates—

(1) £15,090 for Members not falling within paragraph (2); and
(2) £8,800 for Officers of this House and Members receiving a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 or a pension under section 26 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972.



No. 4,
That, in the opinion of this House—

5 (a) the limit specified in paragraph (a) of the third Resolution of this House of 10th June 1982 in relation to the allowances payable in connection with a Member's office, secretarial and research expenses should, for the year ending 31st March 1984 be raised to £12,964, and for any subsequent year should be replaced by two limits as follows—

10 (i) a limit of £13,000 should apply to the allowance (to be known as the secretarial and research allowance) payable to a Member in respect of expenses incurred for his Parliamentary duties on secretarial assistance and on research assistanc for work undertaken in the proper performance of those duties, and
(ii) a limit of £1,000 should apply to the allowance payable to any Member in respect of expenses incurred for his Parliamentary duties as general office expenses;

15 (b) the secretarial and research allowance should be payable only in respect of expenses disbursed on the Member's behalf by the Fees Office in accordance with arrangements approved by Mr Speaker;
(c) the expenses in respect of which the allowance to which the limit specified in paragraph (a)(ii) of this Resolution applies is payable should include expenses incurred in the purchase of office equipment;
20 (d) the limit specified in paragraph (b) of the third Resolution of this House of 5th June 1981 (provision for enabling a Member to make pension contributions in respect of persons in the payment of whose salaries expenses are incurred by him) should be increased so as to be £1,216 for the year ending 31st March 1984 and £1,300 for any subsequent year;
25 (e) arrangemen:s approved by Mr Speaker should be made for contributions in respect of the allowance to which the limit specified in paragraph (d) of this Resolution applies to be made by the Fees Office on behalf of, and as if authorised by, the Member;
30 (f) provision should be made for—

(i) the extension of the facilities now available to Members for free travel by rail, sea, air or public road transport, and
(ii) the payment, at the rate applicable to Members travelling on Parliamentary duties, of a car mileage allowance,

35 to persons in respect of whom the secretarial and research allowance of a Member is (or after 31st March 1984 will be) payable so as to cover, in the period of 12 months beginning with 1st January 1984 and every subsequent period of 12 months beginning with 1st January, not more than nine return journeys between London and that Member's constituency made in connection with the Member's Parliamentary duties;
40 45 (g) provision should be made under arrangements approved by Mr Speaker for an allowance to be payable towards defraying amounts which are paid by the Fees Office on behalf of a person who has ceased to be a Member of this House, being amounts paid, under any enactment relating to redundancy, in connection with 45 the redundancy of a person in respect of whose salary before the redundancy the secretarial and research allowance was (or after 31st March 1984 would have been) payable.

No. 5,
That, in the opinion of this House, paragraph (2)(b) of the second Resolution of this House of 22nd July 1975 (overnight expenses allowance to be 144 times the Class A (i) London rate for a night's subsistence as obtaining in the Cavil Service) should have effect for the period of 12 months ending with 31st March 1985 and every subsequent period of 12 months ending with 31st March as if for '144' there were substituted: '136'.
No. 6,
That, as from 10th June 1983, for the Schedule in Resolution of the House of 20th December 1971 relating to Parliamentary Expenses, as substituted by the Resolution of the House of 15th March 1974, there shall be substituted the following—
No. 7, That, in the opinion of this House, provision should be made in respect of the grant payable in accordance with paragraph (9) of the second Resolution of this House of 20th December 1971 and the fourth Resolution of this House of 4th March 1980 to persons who on a dissolution of Parliament cease to be Members of this House as follows:—

(1) subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), that grant should be payable (and be treated in relation to the dissolution of Parliament on 13th May 1983 as having been payable) whenever, at the general election consequent upon a dissolution of Parliament, a person who was a Member of this House immediately before the dissolution does not stand for election to this House or, if he does, is not elected;
(2) that grant should not be payable, on the dissolution of the present or any future Parliament, to a person who has attained the age of 65 before the dissolution; and
(3) on the dissolution of the present or any future Parliament, no period of service as a Member of this House should be taken into account in accordance with the said fourth Resolution if that period has been taken into account on a previous occasion on which a grant was payable in accordance with one or both of those Resolutions.

SCHEDULE

Battersea; Bethnal Green and Stepney; Bow and Poplar; Chelsea; The City of London and Westminster South; Dulwich; Eltham; Fulham; Greenwich; Hackney North and Stoke Newington; Hackney South and Shoreditch; Harnmersrnith Hampstead and Highgate; Holborn and St. Pancras; Islington North; Islington South and Finsbury; Kensington; Lewisham, Deptford; Lewisham East; Lewisham West; Norwood; Peckham; Putney; Southwark and Bermondsey; Streatham.; Tooting; Vauxhall; Westminster North; Woolwich.

No. 8,
That, in the opinion of this House, for the period of 12 months beginning with 1st January 1984 and every subsequent period of 12 months beginning with 1st January,—

(a) a journey by a child of a Member of this House, being a journey in respect of which facilities for free travel

No. 9, That this House takes note of the Twentieth Report of the Review Body on Top Salaries (Cmnd. 8881) and agrees with the recommendations contained in that Report with respect to the pensions of Members of this House, being recommendations (v) to (x) set out in paragraph 226 of Volume 1 of that Report.
No. 10,
That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 13th July, be approved.

I shall in the course of my remarks comment on the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) and others, which seeks the full implementation of the Plowden report. I shall also refer to the amendments standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), which effectively suggest an alternative way of determining Members' pay. Indeed, I realise that the debate may well centre around the proposals of my right hon. Friend—proposals that are acceptable to the Government.

I have an obligation, nevertheless, to speak to the initial recommendations of the Government, and that I propose to do as succinctly as I can. The details of those recommendations and subsequent motions were set out in the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) on Thursday 14 July. I should perhaps also explain at the outset why there are two similar motions on pay on the Order Paper. That is the normal procedure.

The first motion is framed as an expression of opinion and can be amended; the second bears the Queen's recommendation and cannot be amended. The second motion is required to provide for an increase in Exchequer contributions to the pension fund following an increase in Members' pay. If the motion framed as an expression of opinion finds favour with the House, the second, effective, motion will then be moved. Conversely—and this is more relevant this evening—if the expression of opinion motion is amended, the effective motion will not be moved tonight, but I would propose to bring a suitably revised version before the House at an early opportunity.

That said, I propose to speak briefly, as I realise that many hon. Members wish to speak. I shall, of course, seek an opportunity to speak again at the conclusion of the debate. On that occasion I hope to comment on the points that have been raised meanwhile.

The genesis of the proposals now before us lies in the report of the Select Committee on Members' Salaries published in February 1982. The committee recommended that the Review Body on Top Salaries should where possible review Members' pay in the fourth year of each Parliament.

The Government and the House accepted this recommendation on 10 June 1982; and the review body has accordingly carried out its review. Its report was published as Cmnd. 8881. The Government are most grateful to Lord Plowden and his colleagues for their work, and acknowledge the care that has gone into the preparation of the report.

are provided in accordance with the fourth Resolution of this House of 10th June 1982, should not count against the number of journeys for which facilities for free travel are available to the Member's spouse; but
(b) facilities for free travel should not be so provided in the case of any particular child in respect of more than fifteen return journeys.

The review body considered the following matters: the salaries of Members of Parliament; their secretarial, research and office expenses; other allowances and facilities for Members; their pensions and resettlement arrangements; and the salaries of Ministers and other office holders. I will deal briefly with each of these elements.

First, the Government have tabled motions authorising the review body's recommendations for the improvements in various allowances payable to Members. The biggest single change here is that the allowance for reimbursable payments available for secretarial and research assistance should be increased from £8,820 to £13,000 per year.

The Government also endorse the proposal that, in future, eligibility for the allowance should be subject to the condition that all payments to Member's staff should be made by the Fees Office, on behalf of the Member and direct to the staff concerned. This is desirable in the interests of accountability.

The review body said nothing about arrangements for reviewing this allowance. However, the Government propose that annual adjustments to the allowance should in future be considered, as is broadly the practice with all other allowances.

Turning to pensions, the review body recommends, and the Government accept, that the pension accrual rate for Members should in future be set at one fiftieth rather than one sixtieth of pensionable salary. This is a long sought change. Members cannot normally be expected to have had a full working parliamentary life of 40 years.

The review body also recommends that the pension contribution for Members should be increased. The Government strongly support this view. Our manifesto contained a promise to look for more realistic pension contributions in the public sector which are fair to the beneficiary and the taxpayer. Legislation will be required for the pension changes, which will be introduced after the House returns from the summer recess.

The review body also recommends that a resettlement grant should be available to all Members who leave the House at a general election, with the exception of those who have reached normal retirement age. The House will be aware that the previous rule was that a Member had to be defeated in the general election in order to qualify for this benefit. The review body recognised that widening the criteria involves a basic change but said that it was impressed by the weight of evidence on the difficulties and the anomalies which arise from the present criteria.

The Government have accepted the review body's recommendation on this point. It proposes that the resettlement grant should be available to all Members who retired from the last Parliament following the dissolution on 13 May this year.

At this point I would like to consider one other allowance—motor mileage. As the House will know, a resolution dating from 1975 provides that this allowance should be linked to that payable to civil servants. The Civil Service motor mileage allowance has been periodically increased to reflect movement in costs, and these increases, which are automatically reflected in the mileage rate for Members, are notified to Members by the Fees Office.

Recently there has been a further development in the Civil Service mileage allowance. Following a Rayner investigation, negotiations with the Council of Civil Service Unions led to agreement to introduce a two-tier payments structure more closely related to actual costs. Thus, the present rate will be paid for t first 9,000 miles in any financial year, but a reduced rate will be paid for the mileage thereafter. In current circumstances this will mean payments respectively of 25·8p and 14p.

The Government have considered these changes in relation to the position of Members of Parliament. They conclude that the new Civil Service two-tier structure of motor mileage allowance is appropriate also for Members. Under the terms of the resolution of 1975, the two-tier structure will come into effect for Members from 1 October 1983.

Mr. Terence Higgins: What investigation has my right hon. Friend made into the actual mileage driven respectively by Members of Parliament and civil servants?

Mr. Biffen: That is not the point. Whether the driver behind the wheel is a civil servant or a Member of Parliament, the costs that arise therefrom are the same.
I come now to the question of salary itself. As the House knows, the review body recommended a salary of £19,000 per annum for Members, an increase of some 31 per cent. on the present figure. The Government propose a salary of £15,090 per annum, or an increase of 4 per cent. The Government have also proposed increases of 4 per cent. in respect of Ministers and other office holders.
That proposed increase represents a value judgment of what is an appropriate salary for a Member. We are all constrained to make a value judgment of what that figure should be. The TSRB report suggests that it should pay regard to a Member being full time with no other source of income. It must also take account of the unique nature of a Member's occupation. Those factors alone, however, do not indicate a self-evident salary. We have still to make our own political judgment about an issue sensitive in its economic and social consequences. As I have said, the Government motion proposes an annual salary for Members of £15,090. That figure stands to be considered should the amendments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton fail.
I reiterate that we have to make our personal and political judgment on this issue. It is redolent with economic implications far greater than the actual sums involved. In that context, therefore, I invite the House to reject the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Easington requiring an immediate increase in Members' pay of 31 per cent., so providing an annual salary of £19,000.
I turn now to the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton. In no sense would it be appropriate for me to anticipate the speech that I know he will make

in their advocacy. I would, however, like to reflect upon the general implication of the amendments. I make the following points in no order of magnitude. First, the amendments make a change in the balance between Members' pay and allowances; secondly, they provide for a slightly higher pension contribution; thirdly, they provide for a somewhat higher initial salary increase than the Government's proposal of 4 per cent.; fourthly, they provide for precise planned salary increases to the predetermined level of £18,500 by 1987. That, incidentally, sets aside the more general proposals of the Select Committee for dealing with pay increases during a Parliament. Fifthly, and perhaps most significant of all, the amendments provide for linkage with the relevant Civil Service grade from 1987 onwards, with arrangements to secure a continuing parliamentary presence and authority on these matters. Finally, the amendments have been drawn in such a way as to take account of the public spending factors that are of much concern to the Government.
My right hon. Friend has introduced amendments that do not so much refine the debate on the review board report as transform it, especially in respect of linkage. Indeed, the Order Paper itself bears testimony to that fact. The amendment on linkage in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Sir H. Fraser) suggests an alternative linkage formula that I believe could possibly mean a salary leap just ahead of the next general election. That is a formula that I cannot recommend to the House. I commend the course charted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton.
The debate that lies ahead will enable the House to make judgments that go considerably wider than the current year. Meanwhile, there remain the other motions standing in my name that are unaffected by the anendments of my right hon. Friend. I strongly commend those to the House, and I believe that they are complementary to the amendments in securing an equitable resolution of the immediate and longer-term problem of Members' pay and allowances.

Mr. John McWilliam: This is just another of those uncomfortable, embarrassing, annual debates that we have about salaries and which, if either the motion standing in the name of the Leader of the House or the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) is accepted, will continue to be exactly the same—an uncomfortable and embarrassing annual debate.
We have an opportunity this time to change that We have had time to learn from our experience in 1979, when instead of implementing the report as was then put forward we decided to phase it because, as was said at the time, the increase would have been too great; the public would have reacted unfavourably and there would have been the problem of not setting a good example at a time when the Government wanted to set a good example. Governments always want to set a good example. That goes for the present and previous Governments. Indeed, it is the duty of the Administration to accept the idea that people should set a good example.
However, we have other duties as well. We have duties as hon. Members to the House; we have duties as hon. Members to ensure that Parliament continues to attract people of the calibre which will improve our debates and


the standard of public life in Britain; and as hon. Members we have other duties which too often we forget, such as duties to our families. Hon. Members, particularly provincial ones, often do not take that sufficiently into account when allocating our time, and the review body commented on that, too.
I take it ill when I am lectured by people in the newspapers whose expense allowances are bigger than our salaries. I take it ill when I am lectured by some hon. Members who, out of good fortune, find that their parliamentary salary is the smaller part of their income. I take it particularly ill when criticism is levelled at hon. Members for, as some put it, taking vast salaries for doing little, when the evidence in the review body report, and particularly in the supplement to the report, supported the evidence given to the Boyle committee in 1971 that this is a full-time job. Indeed, the average number of hours we spend on parliamentary business is 63 a week, spread over the whole year. Those of us who were fortunate to be members of the Standing Committee on the Telecommunications Bill might even be applying for overtime if we were sensible, but we are not.
I remind the House of the recent history of salaries, and we have a history of not remunerating hon. Members properly. We sought the advice of the review body in 1971, and its report was implemented. In 1975, by which time inflation had taken its toll, the difference between the amount then and 1971 was so great that it was felt politically improper to implement that report. Indeed, the situation in 1975 sparked off the idea of linkage. A motion suggesting that hon. Members' salaries should be tied to the salaries of assistant secretaries was then carried by 169 votes to 70.
A written answer was published this morning which suggested that if Members had been tied to the grade of assistant secretary their salaries would now be between £19,000 and £23,000. That linkage did not hold, because the Government did not accept it. As I have said, we chose in 1979 to phase the review body's recommendations instead of accepting them there and then. The phasing has had an interesting effect. It has left us on a salary of £14,510, whereas if we had received increases in line with earnings outside we would now be on a salary of £19,500. I do not think that these figures are denied by the Leader of the House and they are well documented in the review body's report.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) tells me that he has access to what goes on at meetings of the 1922 Committee. He told me that the right hon. Member for Taunton attended a meeting of the committee and said "Lads, I have good news and I have bad news." They said "Give us the good news first." He said "You know that I have been trying to do something about salaries. Because of the problems that they are having with the economy, the best that I can do is to get £15,000 for you." They replied, "All right, but what is the bad news?" He answered "I have managed to get it backdated." That is the effect of the group of amendments that the right hon. Gentleman has tabled. The package that they represent is less favourable than that which the Leader of the House is offering us.
The right hon. Member for Taunton cannot be said to have assembled a compromise. The package that he has produced can be described only as something that is worse

than capitulation. I urge the House not to accept the blandishments of the Leader of the House, especially about the amendment of the right hon. Member for Stafford (Sir H. Fraser). I ask right hon. and hon. Members to accept that amendment. If we fail to do so, we shall end up with linkage, but we shall certainly not be linked with the grade of assistant secretary. It is unlikely that we shall be linked with senior principals. Indeed, we shall probably not even be linked with principals. If civil servants keep pace with projected inflation, it is likely that we shall be linked not with assistant secretaries but with higher executive officers. That is something that we must bear in mind when talking about linkage.
I do not have much faith in linkage, because it is never implemented. I thought that the recommendations of the Select Committee that considered Members' salaries were eminently reasonable and sensible. They were a sincere attempt to try to remove us from the embarrassment in which we keep finding ourselves. Far from accepting those recommendations, and far from accepting the package of outside comparatives to be used for linkage during the period between review bodies, we are faced with the prospect of linkage with executive officers or higher executive officers. I do not think that that is fair to the House, and it is not fair to the Civil Service either.
There is a problem that the Leader of the House should consider. If there is to be a difficulty with linkage affecting the salary that is offered to grades within the Civil Service, surely it is better to be linked to a grade with a small number of members than to a main grade with a vast number of members throughout the country. However, that is a problem for the right hon. Gentleman.
On secretarial allowances, I referred on a point of order to amendment (b) to motion No. 4, Mr. Speaker, and I do not challenge your ruling on this. I said that suddenly the allowance had been cut. Had the amendment been in the names of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I would have understood a cut of about £2,000, but, as it is in the name of a Conservative Back-Bench Member, it leads one to the conclusion that the Government are leaving footprints all over motions that purport to come from Back-Bench Members. This amendment shows the fall-back position of the Government. If that is the case, I hope that all hon. Members will recognise what has been done, will recognise that there is resentment on both sides of the House at the way in which it was done, and will treat that amendment accordingly.
I have criticised the Leader of the House in much of my speech, but I wish to pay tribute to his motion No. 7, which applies resettlement grants to people who are no longer Members as a result of the recent election. I thank him for that, and I offer him our full support in ensuring that that motion is passed. I also offer the Leader of the House our support on the motion on Members' children's travel. I live about 300 miles away, and I have two young children, so that allowance will be valuable to myself, my wife and my family, although it will not ameliorate our problems as a result of the salary scale.
It is high time that pensions were based on the age of 50. I have no personal interest in that, because I am one of the lucky ones. I had a job from which I could transfer my pension to the House. I probably have as big a pension entitlement as any other hon. Member—I have about 25 years in the scheme at present, so the motion does not affect me. However, it affects the vast majority of hon.


Members, and it is a good idea. However, there is a sting in its tail. I agree that the contributions should be increased, but we must recognise what that will mean to the proposed salary. The 2 per cent. additional contribution will mean that the £15,090 offered by the Government will be worth £14,880 when it gets into hon. Members' bank accounts. The £15,310, which will be the result next year of amendment (b) being carried, will be reduced because of the increase in contributions to £14,104. Hon. Members will realise that on the amendment, let alone on the motion, the increases being offered are extremely modest and do not compensate for what hon. Members gave up by not implementing fully the 1979 report.
I hope that the Leader of the House will come back to the House to discuss motor mileage. It is not sensible to equate hon. Members' needs with the way in which the Rayner report was applied to Civil Service mileage rates because, as hon. Members may know, if a civil servant travels more than 10,000 miles a year he is provided with an official car. It is not for his personal use, but he can book a car and drive that. Only if he is in the habit of driving less than that will he get the mileage allowance. I used to have an official car, but it was taken away from me because I was doing only 3,000 miles a year. That was felt to be more economical.
The other objection is that hon. Members with large constituencies are penalised at the expense of those with small constituencies. Therefore, the Leader of the House has got that provision wrong. Perhaps he will come back to us, having thought again. It seems that that linkage, which is the only linkage that we have had, is not all that sensible.
I have another point about mileage. When I came to the House, there were three Civil Service mileage rates—which also applied in the Post Office and British Telecom —which depended on the cubic capacity of one's car. When I first claimed mileage, the rate was for a car of more than 1,750 cc. As my car was bigger than that, I made no complaint. However, without telling anybody, those concerned gently slipped down the rate to the middle one, which is 1,500 to 1,750 cc. Many hon. Members will have larger cars than that. I hope that the Leader of the House will bear in mind that we noticed the cut that was made in our mileage allowance. I hope that he will refer to that too.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the proposal discriminates not only against hon. Members representing large rural constituencies but against those having constituencies many miles from London? Does not that show again that the Government appear to be involved more and more in what is going on in London than in places such as Birmingham and Bradford? Will the hon. Gentleman, who is speaking reasonably from the Opposition Front Bench and putting a case that is supported by many Conservative Back Benchers, state how the Leader of the House will make a change as a motion is before the House and another amendment will have to be moved to get him to change his mind? It appears that the House, particularly Back-Bench Members, is being skinned.

Mr. McWilliam: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I declare an interest, having a large rural constituency 300 miles away. The Leader of the House could withdraw the

motion and come back to us later. That is not a problem, but it is a matter for him. Unfortunately, I cannot withdraw the motion.
I shall not take up too much more of the House's time. I ask the Leader of the House to indicate, perhaps by intervening, whether he is willing to change his mind on mileage.

Mr. Biffen: I shall most certainly refer to the motor mileage allowance later in the debate, when I hope to speak for the second time and touch on all the points that have been raised, including that one.

Mr. McWilliam: That sounds distinctly unhopeful. I trust that hon. Members will draw their own conclusions from that.
It is important that we get the secretarial allowance quickly on a proper footing. It is unfair to the many dedicated people who work in the most appalling accommodation. Before I came here I was a trade union representative, and, as one here, I would have complained bitterly and effectively about it. It is vital that we at least give the secretaries proper recompense for the work that they do. It is equally vital that we recognise that the work of an hon. Member is becoming more detailed and complex. Particularly with our role in the new departmental Select Committees and with the amount of proposed detailed legislation. All hon. Members need the right to employ at least half a research assistant.
If hon. Members felt inclined to support amendment (b) even in its amended form, if the amendment of the right hon. Member for Stafford is carried, they will have to make up their minds about what they will do in 1988 because they will then be faced with exactly the same problem that is facing us now. Through phasing we have lost so much ground that it has become politically difficult for the Government to recommend the catching up to which we are entitled but have not had.
It will be equally impossible for any Government in 1988 to recommend the catching up which will be needed then. I give one more warning. Whether or not hon. Members accept the principle of linkage, we shall have to have another report. Having studied that report which will be subjective, and all the previous ones, which were objective, as the Leader of the House said, a greater increase will be recommended than would then seem reasonable in percentage terms.
The only way to avoid the embarrassment of having to debate this year after year is to accept the Plowden report — amendments (ee) and (s)—to grasp the nettle and accept the point about linkage made by the Select Committee on Members' Salaries. If we do not, we shall continue to have these debates and have scorn poured upon us by people who should know better, whose salaries are vastly greater than ours and whose responsibilities—at least as far as one can determine from what they write in their newspapers—vastly less.
I invite hon. Members to be courageous just this once to get us out of the nasty hole into which we keep digging ourselves.

Mr. Edward du Cann: In view of the lateness of the hour, I shall speak more shortly than I would wish. I do not suppose that I am alone in regretting the fact that we are debating this subject at this time of night.
I wish to make some general observations before I discuss the amendments standing in my name. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for saying that they are acceptable to the Government. I wish that he was moving something similar instead of the motions that stand in his name.
First, and above all, I believe it to be an honour and privilege to be a Member of Parliament. I do not accept the philosophy, popular in some quarters, that diminishes the quality of public work. The need, as the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) said, is to attract to Parliament men and women of the highest calibre and of the widest practical experience. This subject deserves better analysis and debate than we give it. Service should always be the keynote. To those who argue that Members of Parliament do not merit a reasonable salary because there are so many aspirants, I reply by saying that in the long run quality is vastly more important than quantity.
My constant ambition has been to remove the perennial, recurrent and avoidable embarrassment that has characterised our recent deliberations on the subject of remuneration and the reimbursement of expenses. I refuse to call the latter expense allowances — they are reimbursements of expenses. The way in which we have dealt with this matter over recent years has been a shame and a degrading of Parliament.
The reason why I sought, with the co-operation of others, not least that of the chairman on the parliamentary Labour party, the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand), to bring the PLP and the 1922 Committee together, and the reason why we have sought to give advice to others that is realistic and sensible, was to avoid such a situation occurring. Sadly, I make the remark that Ministers should listen more. No one should expect enrichment in the public service or big business salaries. However, serious worry for parliamentarians and their wives about money should not be involved either. Nor should a parliamentary career be practicable only for those to whom the salary is irrelevant because they are rich, or because they are hair shirt fanatics, or, worst of all—this is the danger that looms in the future — paid lobbyists.
My second ambition is best put like this. Members of Parliament are the people's representatives, and a representative in another sense in that they are a microcosm of the nation. As we are our own arbiters, we have a special duty to set an example of reasonableness, and I am sure that we all accept that. However, the arrogance or insensitivity of a Cabinet that demands that hair shirts and not fairness be the norm is not acceptable. It involved the House in an unseemly spectacle at the outset of the 1979 Parliament, and it has been the same at the outset of this Parliament in 1983. That is unforgivable. It strains the loyalties and, in any case, this is a House of Commons matter, and not a matter for the Government.
The aim should be that reasonable facilities are made available to Members to do the job, and they should be both physical and financial facilities, such as any other business would provide. I have always fought for that in the House, and I always shall. I do not believe that it is ever right for expenses to come in aggregate to more than pay, and that is the reason for one of my amendments. The Government's proposals for Members run against Government policy in this regard.
As to pay, some element of sacrifice is inevitable, and probably right, but it is cheap and silly to bang a populist drum and refuse to grant a reasonable rate for a hard and responsible job. Plowden had some wise observations on this point, and they should be, as the Americans say, read into the record. Paragraph 225 says:
Parliamentary and ministerial salaries are always a matter of great sensitivity and there is never any shortage of critics ready to attack, and sensationalise, increases in them.
He could have added that this is the right time to discuss this subject and solve it sensibly. He goes on:
We can only say that this reinforces the need for an independent review of parliamentary pay and allowances; and that we firmly believe the salaries we have recommended to be fully justified on the basis of the extensive evidence we have taken and the results of the surveys and studies which are set out in detail in the accompanying volume to this report. Indeed, were we to be guided simply by the relative weight and demands of the jobs we have reviewed, without regard to their public service context, we would feel bound to propose levels of remuneration in some cases very much in excess of those we have recommended".
The House should express a warm vote of confidence in Lord Plowden and his colleagues for their common sense.
According to a parliamentary answer given in the House on 12 July, Top Salaries Review Body members are unpaid and their secretariat is provided free. None the less, that report cost £169,000. If it were not proposed to accept the recommendations, that money should never have been authorised in the first place. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) will allow me to say so, he was Leader of the House at the time and he should not have been authorised to state that the recommendations would be accepted when they were available.
The answer to those who say that candidates at the previous general election knew what their pay would be if they were elected is that they had every reason to expect what was contained in the Plowden report. There is an irony in the present situation. According to the information given to the House just before the election, the armed forces, whose pay was examined by a review body, were to have their remuneration increased by 7·2 per cent. and doctors and dentists were to have theirs increased by 6 per cent., when higher civil servants, senior officers in the services, members of the judiciary and Members of Parliament were apparently to receive less. Such decisions on the part of Government owe more to prejudice than they do to logic.
In one of the latest debates we had in the House on the subject I quoted Coleridge and I do so again.
what begins in fear usually ends in folly.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: If what begins in fear ends in folly, why does my right hon. Friend propose that, with the increased pension contribution and 3·7 per cent. inflation, we shall have a smaller salary than we get now at the end of the five-year period?

Mr. du Cann: In answer to my hon. and learned Friend, I shall explain the salary which is foreshadowed in amendment (b) to motion No. 2.
Like the hon. Member for Blaydon, I should put on record some recent history in this matter. A salary was recommended by a review body in October 1964. That was a figure of £3,250. It was accepted by the Government of the day. If that salary were increased in line with the RPI, it would be £19,275 in May 1983. In January 1972 the salary recommended by the review body was £4,500. That


recommendation was again accepted in full. The equivalent level, if increased in line with the RPI, would be £18,125. In June 1975 the recommendation was £8,000. The equivalent today would be £19,480. It was not paid. That is when the difficulty began. Again in June 1979 the recommendation was £12,000, of which the equivalent would be £18,550 today. Again, for the second time, that was not paid; and again that is the reason why we have a problem today.
The figure of £18,500 in amendment (b) is the equivalent in cost of living terms of what was recommended in 1979 and the rough equivalent of what was previously recommended and previously accepted, not only by the House and the Governments of the day but also by the nation. It should be clearly understood that such a figure is not something extraordinary but something which the nation has previously approved.
Secondly —I come to the point mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend—I suggested staging because, as I have already said, the House has a responsibility to be reasonable and staging will more easily fit in with the direction of the Government's economic policy.
I have deliberately increased in this amendment the proportion of a parliamentary salary that Ministers would draw: for it has always seemed to me that the proposal that Ministers are only very little Members of Parliament is nonsense. Even Ministers must deal with their constituency responsibilities.

Mr. Stan Crowther: Is not the right hon. Gentleman proving the case for the z.mendment in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends? Is he not proving to the hilt that the case is fully made out for the increase recommended by Plowden to be implemented not in four years time but now? If that is his argument, how can he justify his own amendment?

Mr. du Cann: My amendment is a devoted attempt to get the House out of the difficulty that it now faces.
Fourthly, I remind the House that it has twice voted in favour of linkage. It is right that the House should state overwhelmingly that linkage is the only way out of the difficulty and that that is what we want. [HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] I abandoned the idea of putting any specific linkage into the amendment because Plowden never suggested that his recommendations should be indexed. As practical people, we must recognise that it is not feasible to settle on a specific linkage four or five years ahead of the event.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Can my right hon. Friend estimate what £18,500 will be worth by 1987 at current values and what relationship that will bear to a Civil Service ranking?

Mr. du Cann: No. We are speaking about a later year than 1987. My proposal, which my hon. Friend may consider useful, may deal reassuringly with the matter that he raises.

Mr. Dykes: As my right hon. Friend has built his argument on the assertion that £18,500 is the correct figure, it is only right that he should tell the House what the value of that sum will be in 1988 and what relationship it will bear to an equivalent Civil Service pay level.

Mr. du Cann: I cannot speculate about that. No hon. Member in his right mind would attempt to do that, although we must all rejoice at the low rate of inflation. —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must hear the right hon. Gentleman's argument.

Mr. du Cann: As to pensions, there is no objective and necessarily right basis for the sharing of total pension costs between employee and employer. The Top Salaries Review Body recommended the continuation of the sharing proportion which it had previously put forward —that is, 8 per cent. of salary.
The Conservative party is committed to a statement made in its election manifesto that public sector pensioners would continue to be protected against rising prices on the basis of realistic pension contributions. I do not think that there should be index-linked pensions in the future. That is a burden which the nation can ill afford. As Members of Parliament would be receiving a benefit of 22 per cent., which is more than the Civil Service benefit of about 20 per cent., it is appropriate that the contribution should increase to 8.8 per cent. — rounded to 9 per cent. —which is the actual cost.
To reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), I have not followed the Select Committee recommendations for constant uprating of salaries in line with inflation, for two reasons. First, parliamentarians have particular responsibility for inflationary pressures and should not be completely protected. Secondly, I believe that reviews should take place once in every Parliament.
As has already been made clear in the debate, there are a number of anomalies and points of detail about which hon. Members in all parts of the House are anxious. Some are matters of tax. According to a recent memorandum of guidance, the Inland Revenue seems to have changed the rules in certain respects. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House mentioned a new point about mileage. It is idiotic to try to deal with a long list of detailed points once in every four or five years because it is impossible to digest. A small group of Members from both sides of the House should be nominated to act as umpires, with the duty to report on anomalies on a continuous basis.
I hope that I have already shown clearly that the element of sacrifice for Members of Parliament is heavy. I give just one more example for the record — the comparison with foreign Parliaments. The figures are remarkable. In Australia, a Member of Parliament is paid £21,000, in Belgium £20,000, in Canada £22,000, in Germany £21,000, in France £27,000 and in Italy £17,000. I think that everyone knows the figure for the United States. Thus, even if my amendment is accepted, British legislators will still be more poorly paid than those of any comparable country in the free world. That is not a matter for rejoicing, but the facts should be stated here and made clear to the public.
If the economy improves, there may be a chance of doing better, but one thing is certain. This debate should never have needed to take place. I hope that the House in its wisdom will accept my amendment.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) has finished his speech.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. So that there is no misunderstanding, I will repeat what was said by the Leader of the


House. We are having a general debate on all the amendments selected. I shall put the Questions on the amendments at the end, in the order in which they appear on the Order Paper.

Mr. Jack Dormand: The right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) referred to me in his speech. If I understand him correctly, he said that there were some matters on which it would be improper for him or me in our respective positions to comment because we had had talks, which must by definition be informal, on certain matters affecting both sides of the House. I agree with that in principle and it is true that we have had talks on the matters before the House today.
To avoid any misunderstanding and to make my position abundantly clear, however, I wish to make it plain that I do not associate myself in any way with the right hon. Gentleman's amendment. Indeed, I shall be one among the first into the Lobby to vote against it.
I shall be brief, not only because many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate but because I wish to confine myself to what I regard as the principles governing pay awards.
There are two basic questions that must be answered. First, are hon. Members prepared to accept the going rate for the job? As a life-long trade unionist, I have never thought that it could be otherwise and I have never come across anybody who would question that proposition. It is easy to imagine what would happen if it was suggested that someone was not to be paid the going rate for the job. I am sure that there are some altruistic hon. Members who are not prepared to accept the going rate. That must be the classic case of the exception proving the rule.
The second question that must be answered is: who decides what is the going rate for rate for the job? The answer, in the case of Members of Parliament, must surely be an independent body. I say for Members of Parliament because it would be difficult, if not impossible, to follow the normal pattern of negotiation between employee and employer. For years people have said that the settling of hon. Members' pay should be taken out of the hands of hon. Members. That seems so obvious that it is unbelievable that we are still here in 1983 playing around with the problem.
I well remember the delight in 1971 when the Boyle committee was established. Some of us thought that the millenium had arrived. Not only did we have the independent body, but it was comprised of people who were well qualified to sit in judgment on Members' pay and conditions. There have been nine more reports since 1971 and I need not go into the sorry story of what happened to their recommendations.
Today we are watching yet another report being savaged. I am eternally astonished that the Government can find busy and highly qualified people to sit on review bodies. When they see what happens to their work, it must occur to them that a great deal of their time and effort has been wasted and could have been used in other ways. It is not an unimportant point that this report has cost more than £1 million to produce.
Most people agree that an independent body is the right and sensible method of dealing with Members' pay and allowances. In the circumstances that I have described, I

find it difficult to understand why the Government and some hon. Members are unable to accept the recommendations that were made after the most careful study, not least after considering the remuneration of parliamentarians in other parts of the world.
When I talk of the rate for the job, a comparison with what happens in other countries is a crucial factor in determining our pay. In the survey that was specially commissioned by the review body, the following is said about salaries:
Compared with legislators in broadly similar countries—Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Italy and Ireland—British members come seventh out of eight.
That speaks for itself.
I shall give one more fact about the rate for the job. If we were to get the full 30·9 per cent. increase that the report recommends, we would have a salary which, at £19,000 was 2·15 times average earnings. That is the same ratio that existed in 1980 and it is lower than the ratio in France, Belgium, West Germany, Holland, Italy, Ireland and the United States.
Then we bump head on into perhaps the biggest bogey in the whole business. Many people say, "Yes, our Members of Parliament should be paid more, but now is not the time to do it." To that argument I say that there will never be a right time to make the break and pay us what, on any objective criteria, is said to be the correct amount. The result is exactly what has happened in recent years: our relative standing in what I might describe as the pay league has sunk lower and lower.
I am not much given to statistics, but in a debate of this nature I think that it is legitimate to compare remuneration, bearing in mind the fact that our pay is now £14,510 and the recommendation is for £19,000, and that my main theme is the rate for the job.
I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members agree that we are well served by the staff of this House, and it is right that they should be properly paid. The General Manager of the Refreshment Department receives £21,898. The Editor of the Official Report receives £24,409. The Head of the Adminstration Department receives £26,250, and his Accountant £24,409.
I have quoted the heads of those Departments, but we can also examine those who are further down the scale —if I may so describe them. A Deputy Principal Clerk —I remind the House that there are 15 in that category, and they are sixth in the hierarchy of the Department—receives £24,409. The Deputy Serjeant at Arms receives £24,409. My final example, because I hope that I have established the point, is that of Assistant Librarian, who receives £22,928. I want to make it clear that I have no grumbles about any of those salaries, particularly in view of the dedicated and always courteous service that we receive from the staff concerned. Nevertheless, I cannot accept that the duties of those employees are more onerous or involve more responsibility than those of a Member of Parliament.
My final comparison is contained in a most revealing answer given on 1 July 1983 to my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie), which shows that from April 1979 to June 1983 the percentage increase in a Member of Parliament's pay is 110·4. The comparative increases for Ministers of State and Under-Secretaries in the House of Commons and in the other place are, respectively, 131·4, 174·3, 133·5 and


192·2 per cent. I submit that those figures should be given the most serious consideration by those who seek to oppose my amendment.
Whenever an increase in Members' pay is considered, the cry goes up, "What are MPs complaining about? There are plenty of people wanting the job." it would be arrogant in the extreme for any House of Commons—this House of Commons or any other—to imagine that the quality of its membership could not be improved. I have not the slightest doubt that many people, admirably suited in every way, are deterred from standing for Parliament by the present pay. Although it is not relevant to my amendment, people are also deterred by the appalling conditions in which hon. Members are required to work. Having an office to oneself in this build mg is now regarded as something of a status symbol.
The quality of the membership of the House is, of course, a matter on which the public has firm views. We must admit that we are not the most popular people in society. Nevertheless, I detect that more people are beginning to say that we are somewhat underpaid, given the responsibilities of Members of Parliament and the long hours that we work.

Mr. Dykes: Did the hon. Gentleman note in paragraph 225 on page 57 of the Plowden report a passage that comes later than the one that my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) read. It states:
Indeed, were we to be guided simply by the relative weight and demands of the jobs we have reviewed, without regard to their public service context, we would feel bound to propose levels of remuneration … very much in excess of those we have recommended.

Mr. Dormand: I remember that well, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has pointed it out. I have had a most interesting experience in the past few days —[Interruption.] You should not be smiling, Mr. Speaker! That remark relates to the theme to which I have devoted my remarks. Last week I made six national broadcasts on television and radio about this issue. I told my secretary to be prepared for an avalanche of letters. However, I have received only one letter on the matter—[Interruption.] I am not sure whether that is a very scientific piece of evidence, but it is perhaps some intimation of the gradual change that is taking place in the public attitude towards its elected representatives.
I conclude by suggesting that the Division on my amendment could be historic, and could be the occasion on which long after the feeling engendered in 1971 took practical and concrete form hon. Members finally asserted that independent investigations and recommendations cannot and should not be cast aside lightly. It will also be a vote for the dignity of the high office that we are all proud to hold.

Sir Hugh Fraser: I draw the attention of the House to the amendment standing in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and other hon. Friends to the amendment so ably propounded by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann).
We shall vote tonight in a rather interesting way. I gather that my amendment will be the first to be called. I thank the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) for drawing attention to the importance of my amendment,

which meets with some support from hon. Members on both sides of the House. I therefore beg them to exercise what is called "tactical voting" and vote for my amendment, not hoping for anything more from a rather hard-faced Government later on. I hope that my message is clear.
The Leader of the House has a difficult function. He has to consider the best interests not of party but of the House of Commons. My right hon. Friend must at the same time tincture this position of conscience with party loyalty. Tonight I feel that he has overtinctured his conscience with the pursuit of what is a temporary political ambition of one political party.
I shall quote one passage of the report which deserves the attention of the House. It says:
We have commented previously that it would be damaging in the long run to the overall quality of the membership of the House, and thereby to the national interest"—
that is what should concern the Government and the Leader of the House tonight—
if the salary of MPs were allowed to remain too far below the levels available to able men and women in other walks of life.
The hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) asked what should be the balance and how we should decide what the job is worth. When I joined the House 38 years ago, it was decided by the elders of the House. We would be suddenly told that we had been given a pay increase. After 1971 we set up this great committee of wise and good men. That is one way to do it. But every time its advice has been disregarded by the Government in office, except when my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was Prime Minister. Otherwise, this has been a lamentable farce which has exposed the House of Commons to the obloquy of the populace and added enormously to the unnecessary heat of feeling in the House.
Another method that could be pursued is linkage to an outside body, which is proposed in the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton. That is the easiest and best way to rid the House of this continual and embarrassing debate about whether we should be weighed in diamonds, feathers or lead like the Aga Khan. This is the quickest and simplest way to pursue the interests of the House. That is why my right hon. Friends and I have tabled this simple amendment to tie the eventual figure not to some imaginary, hidden civil servant who will emerge in in 1988, but to positive actual figure today which makes the thing realistic. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that this would lead to a colossal problem at the next election. This Government are pledged to keeping inflation to zero. What are they worried about? Our amendment would encourage them to greater things.
I have been in the House for many years— [Hon. Members: "Too long".] Hon. Members say, "Too long" —far from it. Of one thing I am certain—times have changed. When I was elected in 1945, I was an island in a wave of Soclialism:
Apparent rani nantes in gurgite vasto.
We spoke Latin in those days. We have now had another, equally important, election in 1983. The world has changed since 1945, as have the principles for which we fought then. There are new principles—essentially those of meritocracy. Rightly or wrongly, the people believe in that.
The Government are rightly spending £1 million on hiring an industrialist to run one of our companies, but they should also pay attention to the merits of a properly


remunerated House of Commons. I shall later press my amendment and hope for maximum support, for that is in the best interests of the House.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The right hon. Member for Stafford (Sir H. Fraser) moved an amendment that I wish to support in case the House then carries the amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann). Who am Ito advise the right hon. Gentleman on tactical voting? I shall later advise the House not to vote for the amendment of the right hon. Member for Taunton because it is not really an improvement on the Government's position.
I respect the zeal and determination with which the right hon. Member for Taunton carries out two functions in the House. There have been many, many occasions when he has spoken loudly and clearly on behalf of the interests of hon. Members when it was not in any way to his advantage to do, so and might even have been to his disadvantage. He has also been a zealous safeguarder of public purse against wasteful expenditure, especially when it concerns the affairs of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman tonight made an interesting and compelling speech. He gave the impression that he had written it before he tabled his amendment. He appeared to have prepared the speech for a much better deal than he has secured. He no doubt applied himself vigorously to the task, but he has proved a bad shop steward and an unsuccessful broker if he sought to secure any significant improvement on what the Government have put forward, and especially if he was seeking to achieve that wider, but more important, objective of ensuring that the House does not annually get itself into a mess on the subject of pay and allowances.
The right hon. Gentleman properly described these allowances as the reimbursement of expenses. That is exactly what they are. They are an important part of the motion. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I, together with other hon. Members in all parts of the House, very much resent the constant references to the reimbursement of expenses as though that was the payment of perks and allowances for Members to spend at will on whatever they chose. I am sorry to say that the tactic adopted by the Government tonight has furthered that tendency. The tactic of saying to hon. Members, "We will not give you very much on pay, but, never mind, because we will give you all the allowances that Plowden recommended" is playing right into the hands of those in the press who have suggested that the reimbursement of expenses is some hidden way in which Members of Parliament gain some compensating benefit for not being paid on anything like the basis recommended by the independent body. I can think of no other walk of life in which the payment of a salary and national insurance contributions for a secretary is taken as a figure, added to a person's income and then described as though he received it, took it home and spent it on whatever he chose.
Referring to expenses in that way is a penalty all the more vicious on those who are most conscientious in carrying out their duties. The harder one works in this place, the more dependent one is on going beyond those

allowances to do the job properly. By dealing with the matter in that way the House puts a penalty on those who carry out their duties in the most conscientious way.
Even some of the slips of the tongue and expressions that hon. Members have used in discussing the issue have in some respects furthered the false impressions that are given. If it is suggested, for example, that the reduction that has been proposed in the secretarial allowance as part of a package "takes it from secretaries to give it to hon. Members", that, too, furthers a misapprehension. Plowden sought to create for hon. Members an opportunity, which we have never had before, to employ a full-time secretary at a salary which in some way was related to the normal remuneration of someone with those skills, and to employ somebody in a part-time capacity to carry out research and related work on behalf of the hon. Member, either in his constituency or at Westminster.
To prevent us from doing one of those two things would not be a proper way of proceeding, and to regard that as a part of a package to cut down on the costs of the deal throws insult at a body which set out to work out what hon. Members do and what assistance they need to do it.
We are fortunate in the House to have people working for us, some of them at very low rates of pay, who serve us loyally. In the secretaries' council we have a body of people who have got together to try to work out practical and sensible proposals on these matters, and Leaders of the House in the past—and I pay particular tribute to the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) —listened carefully to the advice offered by that body.
It must be said on behalf of hon. Members that there are a number of expenses which are not reimbursed but which have to be paid from their salaries. Think of the numerous telephone calls which hon. Members make from their homes to or on behalf of their constituents. It is not generally known by the public that there is no reimbursement of those expenses. If an hon. Member is in the House, he can make a phone call without charge from here on behalf of his constituents. If he is at home in his constituency, he cannot do that other than at his own expense.
If an hon. Member finds that he has, at his own expense and not at the expense of his political party, to organise and advertise surgeries and book rooms for interviews with his constituents, that expense is not reimbursed. If he pays it from his salary, he can get that portion refunded from that which he pays in tax, but that is only part of the cost which he incurs and the rest comes out of his salary. It must be underlined that there is a whole range of costs and expenses arising from the job which are not reimbursed, and the burden on the reimbursed expenses and on the salary is that much more real.
I welcome the recognition which Plowden gave, and which the Government have given, to this principle and the way in which the proposals before us remind the public that they are paying the salaries of other people, and not of hon. Members, through the reimbursements, and therefore I agree that salaries should be paid direct. There are some practical problems which I hope that the Leader of the House will examine in detail as we come to implement that principle, particularly where an hon. Member employs as one of the people on his staff under the proposed arrangement somebody who also works for somebody else; the salary is then divided with somebody else who may not be a Member of Parliament. We must work out a means by which that can be dealt with, even


though the national insurance contributions and PAYE are all being dealt with by some other person or organisation. Practical problems could arise if an hon. Member's total bill for salaries exceeds the amount of the allowances available to him. In the past, the Fees Office has not been able to handle the payments in those cases where the hon. Member is paying out more than he receives in allowances. That will be the case new with many hon. Members, and, if we reduce what Plowden proposed, it will certainly be the case in future. That would not be covered if we followed precisely the wording which the Leader of the House used in his speech, although it is covered in the motions by the assumption that you, Mr. Speaker, would approve arrangements to deal with such matters.

Mr. Stephen Ross: In recommending the proposal of the right hon. Member for Stafford (Sir H. Fraser) I hope that my hon. Friend is not also agreeing that we should reduce from £13,000 to £11.000 the secretary's allowance recommended by Plowden.

Mr. Beith: I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that point. I made particular reference to the proposal of the right hon. Member for Stafford because his linkage is better than that contained in the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Taunton I do not want the amendment of the right hon. Member for Taunton to be carried. I do not want the backdoor part of that deal in which allowances that are properly proposed to enable Members to provide a service are removed to meet costs that do not seem properly to arise. The Government would be in pocket at the end of the day rather than worse off on several interpretations of their proposals.
I shall make some brief and personal observations on what a Member's level of pay should be. We do ourselves no service if we undervalue the work of a Member of Parliament. Like many other Members, I work extremely hard over very long hours in undertaking my job. I am not ashamed or embarrassed to say that. I do not think that hon. Members should seek to make any secret of the fact that they work hard or should be embarrassed to draw certain conclusions as a result. My family and the families of many hon. Members have to accept a considerable level of personal sacrifice to accommodate the life that we choose to live. It is not unreasonable that in those circumstances a Member of Parliament should have a tolerably well-paid job.
I had the responsibility yesterday of answering some questions on behalf of the House, of Commons Commission. In doing so, I had to reveal not only that considerable salaries are paid to some of our principal officers but also that it is necessary to go a very long way down the scale of salaries that are paid to those who are employed in the Palace before reaching the level that the Government propose that Members should be paid.
It is significant that the Leader of the House talked about making a proper valuation of the payment of a Member of Parliament. He did not say that there is a proper level of payment for Members and that on the grounds of sacrifice, expediency or economic policy they should be paid less. He argued that we have to make a judgment of what the right level of pay should be. I presume that he has put on the Order Paper what he thinks that level should be.
If that is what the right hon. Gentleman has done, he has seriously undervalued the work that Members

perform. What is the point of setting up review bodies to determine what our level of pay should be, allowing them to spend large sums in the process, and then ignoring what they recommend? The introduction to the Plowden commission's report contains many references to the studies that it commissioned, the questionaires that Members completed and the evidence that it received. That all cost money and took time, and the findings have all been ignored by the Goverment. It is clear that they have ignored the findings by what they have placed on the Order Paper.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, whatever commission a Government set up to advise on these matters, responsibility for implementing the commission's findings remains with Parliament?

Mr. Beith: That is the basis of my comment about the remarks of the Leader of the House. Even though I believe in the principle of linkage, I acknowledge that at the end of the day we are responsible for the linkage. If the linkage takes us in a direction that we do not want to go, we must take responsibility for that. The Leader of the House, in inviting us to make a judgment on what the level of payment should be and inviting us to exercise that responsibility, has done us a disservice in placing on the Order Paper what he thinks Members of Parliament are worth, and that is the issue before us.
That is the position unless the right hon. Genteman asks us to answer a different question. For example, he could say "There is a certain valuation but how much less than that is it expedient for us to be paid at this time?" However, he has not posed that question. He has asked us directly to say what our work is worth and at what level we should be remunerated.
It is not for me to argue with the Government about pay policy, because I belong to a party which has argued in election campaigns that we should have pay policies. We have been defeated by a Government who believe that there should not be pay policies and that we should not impose such external restraints upon systems of payment. I find it odd that we should be asked by the Government to be the instrument of pay policy and the determinant of pay policy. However, that is an argument that I do not want to expand now.
Conservative Members, especially the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker), who intervened to say that the matter is our responsibility, should share my concern about the fact that Ministers—those on the Government payroll—will be required to go through the Lobbies to ensure that other hon. Members are paid considerably less than them. It is strange for them to argue that other hon. Members should help them in that task.
I concede that this time Ministers are accepting generally the same level of increase as the rest of us, though the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) produced figures that revealed that that has not been the pattern in the past. It is strange that responsibility should rest with those receiving a higher salary than hon. Members generally. Ministers should go home. Let the decision be left with those of us on whom the responsibility should properly fall.
I remind hon. Members that there is a motion buried at the end of the Order Paper dealing with ministerial salaries. Ministers will expect us to vote pay levels for


them that are substantially higher than our own. I advise hon. Members not to leave early. That vote may allow them to express their feelings.

Mr. Tony Marlow: The hon. Gentleman said earlier that the Government were increasing allowances, but my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House mentioned the new mileage allowance. An hon. Member who drives 1,000 miles a month—less than the average—will lose about £25 a month or £300 a year, which represents a taxable income of £400 to £450 a year. If hon. Members are asked to look at the proposals as a package, that allowance is a significant part of the package. Hon. Members who do their job properly and, like the hon. Member, have constituencies that are a long way from Westminster, could lose £800 or £1,000 a year because of the reduced allowance.

Mr. Beith: That is a fair point. My constituency covers not much less than 1,000 sq. miles and I know what large mileages hon. Members can clock up. I find it worrying that the reduction in the mileage allowance was slipped in at the last moment. It is interesting that the car allowance and the allowance given to hon. Members to maintain a home in London or in their constituency are the only two allowances that have had any buoyancy about them, and that is because they are linked to what happens in the Civil Service. No other allowance is similarly linked. It is a demonstration of how wrongly we treat ourselves that only the allowances linked to the Civil Service allowances take proper account of inflation — except when as in this case, they are cut back.
Hon. Members may have different views about what our level of pay should be, but they must cast their votes on their own responsibility. They should not be bought off by deals or arrangements designed to let the Government off the hook. Conservative Members will not be doing the Government a service if they ensure that this problem will recur year after year, as it surely will.
If we pass the amendments of the right hon. Member for Taunton, we shall discover next year that, despite the Government's best efforts, the rate of inflation—even if it is not much more than we expect it to be in November — has begun to make a nonsense of the proposed staging. That will happen year after year. The fact that the Leader of the House issued a warning that in 1988 we may face the problem of needing to vote ourselves a large increase underlines the need for hon. Members to decide tonight what they should be paid and what, if anything, they should be linked to. They should cast their votes accordingly and do so fearlessly.
Even if hon. Members' constituents disagree with them about their conclusion, they will not think any less of them if they stick to their guns and do not undervalue the job that they do.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: My first remark will be widely welcomed, because I do not intend to speak for long, but I shall speak freely because this matter must be determined by the House, not by the Government. I hope that the payroll vote, as it has been called, will not be wheeled out this evening by the Government — [AN HON. MEMBER: "My right hon.

Friend did it."] My hon. Friend says that I did it, which is true. I speak with some authority on such matters because I have seen them from both sides of the fence.
There has been general agreement in the House that the Government have not handled the matter especially adroitly. Hon. Members have been exposed in the press to a campaign of innuendo — in some newspapers, vilification—undermining the relationship of the House with those whom we represent. That does a grave disservice to our institutions. This is the only elected House in our constitution, and the democratic rights and liberties of the people are defended by the House. It is much more important to preserve that than to preserve any economic theory. To adapt Lord Palmerston's famous saying, economic theories rise and fall; Parliament abides.
When I was Leader of the House in 1979 and 1980, I had some direct responsibility for such matters. The Government's record was not that bad. They did rather better than the Government in which the present Leader of the Opposition was Leader of the House, with responsibility for such matters. After years of neglect, parliamentary salaries were increased, as were research and secretarial allowances. Severance pay was provided, and I was able to propose the ending of the monstrous practice whereby Members' pay and allowances stopped immediately on death, causing hardship at a time of great difficulty for dependants and relations. We also provided pensions for Members' secretaries, which was a most important reform.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred, rather unkindly, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) as a bad shop steward. I received an even more dubious compliment from a Labour Member, whose identity I shall not reveal because he may be standing in the leadership contest, who told me that I was the best shop steward that the House had had. As I said then, I believe that the salary paid to a Member of Parliament should not be so large that it is a financial inducement and the principal reason for entering the House, but such as to allow those hon. Members who wish to devote themselves exclusively to parliamentary affairs to be able to do so without causing hardship to themselves or to their families. That concept was an essential counterpoint to the other major reform with which I was associated, which was the Select Committee system.
The Plowden Committee recommended a salary of £19,000, which is about right for today. The Government chose to reject that recommendation, while accepting almost all the other recommendations. They increased allowances by the full amount recommended but suggested that salaries should increase by only 4 per cent. That is a completely wrong priority. The proposal that allowances should increase so that the gap between them and the salary paid to a Member becomes very small is highly undesirable. I welcome the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton. His amendment is an improvement—everyone will have to concede that—on the original Government proposal. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] But I believe that it is right—

Mr. Fairbairn: Assuming that inflation remains at its present level, does my right hon. Friend accept that, with the increased pension contribution, the proposals of my


right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) would mean that, at today's prices, the salary of a Member of Parliament in 1988 would be not £14,500, but £13,500?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is precisely why I am suggesting an amendment to my right hon. Friend's proposal. I recall the pledge that I gave on 4 March 1980, which is in Hansard, that the recommendations of the review body would be implemented. The importance of that pledge is, not that I made it but that it was made on behalf of the Cabinet.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What is their answer?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is no good my hon. Friend shouting at me, "What is their answer?" He must shout that at somebody else. I am no longer in a position to answer him.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Come back. all is forgiven.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am not seeking office. If I were. this would be a funny way of doing it.
Equally important are the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton for linkage because they are intended — I stress that, and I shall make a qualification before I provoke another storm—once and for all to end the appalling process which we are going through again this evening. It is half farce and half humiliation to be obliged to go through it in every Parliament. The proposals are intended to end the falling back in salary and the catching up, which bedevil the whole matter every time we discuss it.
It is my opinion that, on this crucial matter, my right hon. Friend's recommendations are fatally flawed. In January 1988, there is to be the link with the Civil Service grade of £18,500, but it is to be with a grade as identified on 1 January 1987, after nearly four years of inflation. We do not know what it will be, but I think that we can be fairly sure that it will be higher than zero. That has not been taken into account.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Sir H. Fraser) and I have put forward a simpl.t and reasonable proposal that the link be made from 13 June this year. It would take effect on 1 January 1988. That simple amendment avoids the problem that with my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton's proposal we would again be falling behind when the matter was considered again.
No rational argument can be made against the amendment. I commend what the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said about tactical voting in support of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford said. There is no greater authority on tactical voting than the Liberal party. It did not do well in Chelmsford, but I wish it better luck tonight.

Mr. Stephen Ross: This member of the Liberal party will not be voting tactically tonight. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman's proposition is that we shall not get an increase anywhere near to £19,000, which he said he thought was the right recommendation, until after 1988. If inflation is 5 or 6 per cent., in 1988 there will suddenly be a boost of about £3,000, which no Government are likely to accept. How does the right hon. Gentleman explain that? Is he proposing that the secretarial allowance should be reduced from £13,000 to £11,000 for those of us who employ two secretaries and pay them about £14,000 a year?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Gentleman is wide of my point, which was simple, and the same as that made by his hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. It is possible to vote for amendment (i) and against (b). Hon. Members can vote for (i) as an insurance policy in case (b) should be passed. That is an important point to make.
I wish to make two further points. The Leader of the House is proposing separate office, secretarial and research allowances. I was in a similar position in 1979 and 1980. Originally I proposed two separate allowances —the secretarial and the research allowances. I received representations from hon. Members and we changed them to a single allowance. I hope that my right hon. Friend will do the same with regard to office allowances because hon. Members' needs are different. The allowances should be as flexible as possible.

Mr. Biffen: If it will help my right hon. Friend, may I say that I shall recommend that course.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend. I do not wish to seem importunate, but, as he has been so reasonable on that point, will he be equally reasonable about car mileage allowances? His is an unworkable proposition, although I understand why it has been put forward. The House would have nothing but respect for him if he were to say that the House has shown its will in this matter and the proposition will be withdrawn.
I have waited some time to make my final point. As Leader of the House, I discovered to my surprise that some Cabinet Ministers—not my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—seemed to regard themselves as a species or race of superior beings and Back Benchers as lesser beings without the law. One heard an echo of the current view in a broadcast by a Cabinet Minister who said on "The World at One" on Friday, "We are trying to talk some sense into our colleagues in the House of Commons." With respect, that is constitutionally the wrong way round. It is the job of the House to try to talk some sense into Ministers and hope for success. I have always held that view. I always put my principles into practice when I could. I remember on one occasion annoying my colleagues after a discussion that had infuriated me when I asked, "What, after all, are any of us but a lot of jumped-up Members of Parliament?" Shortly after, I returned to the Back Benches.
I hope that the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and I will be passed. Without it, we shall have this damaging charade again in five years. Let this be the last occasion that we have these debates which are so damaging to the greatest of our institutions—the House of Commons.

Mr. Dormand: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you rule on the statement by the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), which was misleading, albeit innocently? He said that he was advising hon. Members to vote for amendment (i) as an insurance against the possibility of my amendment falling. Is it not the case that if either the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) or that in the name of the right hon. Member for Chelmsford is passed, my amendment falls and will not be voted for?

Mr. Speaker: That is the fact.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, which is an important one. If my amendment to amendment (b) is passed, will it be possible to take a vote on amendment (b)?

Mr. Speaker: That is correct. The first Division will be on amendment(i) to amendment (b). The second Division will be on amendment (b) as amended, or not, as the case may be.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it possible for us to vote on the recommendations of the Plowden committee? As I understand it, your recommendation to the House is that if amendment (i) is carried amendment (b) will fall, but we are not able to vote on the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand)?

Mr. Speaker: The first to be put will be amendment(i) to amendment (b). I put amendment (b), and if that is carried it will be added to the main Question, in the form that the main Question is put.

Mr. Jack Straw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we be clear that if amendment (i) is carried, the substantive amendment (b), as amended by amendment (i) will be put, and therefore it is open to hon. Members to vote in favour of amendment (i) as an insurance, but to vote against amendment (b), even though it has been amended by amendment (i)?

Mr. Speaker: That is in order.

Mr. Terry Davis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is some confusion because of the information that has been put in the Lobbies. According to that information, which seems to be supported by what you say, the suggestion is that if amendment(i) is carried, hon. Members will not have an opportunity to vote on the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand). In other words, we are concerned that the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) may have misled the House. It is no good voting for amendment (i) and then finding that we are not able to vote on what we really want to vote on—amendment (ee).

Mr. Speaker: If amendment (i) is carried, it will be added to amendment (b). In that case, amendment (ee) will fall. If amendment (b) is agreed to, (ee) will fall. If it is not agreed to, I shall put amendment (ee).

Mr. Higgins: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the situation is as you have just described it, is it not the case then that what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) said about insurance is not the case? Therefore, it would not be possible to vote on the other amendment or to have the insurance to which my right hon. Friend referred. If that is so, would you consider accepting a manuscript amendment that would enable us to take the amendments in the right order?

Mr. Speaker: I am bound to take the amendments in the order in which they are on the Order Paper. I cannot go beyond that.

Mr. Jack Straw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Order Paper has been set out, and as you have described it, if either amendment (i) or amendment (b) is carried there will be no opportunity for

hon. Members to vote on what is unquestionably the main one—the recommendations of the Plowden committee. We understand that you have arrived at your selection because amendments have to be taken in the line order in which they fall. As you know, I submitted a manuscript amendment which had the effect of amendment (ee) but which was so phrased as to come above amendment (b) in line order. In view of hon. Members' great desire to vote either aye or no on the main Question, the Plowden committee's recommendations, I respectfully ask you to accept that manuscript amendment so that there can be a vote on the Plowden committee's recommendations before we decide whether to accept amendment (i) or (b).

Mr. Speaker: That is a fair point. I should like to consider the matter carefully and I shall rule upon it in a moment.

Mr. John Gorst: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you consider that, will you bear in mind those hon. Members who wish to have the opportunity to vote for all of Plowden or none at all. At the moment it will be difficult for us to do so.

Mr. Speaker: That is exactly what I have in mind.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: As one who looks forward to voting against everything, may I ask for a few moments for the use of the freedom of speech which was claimed by the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas)?
The House is confronting its recurrent embarrassment. A few weeks ago every hon. Member to the utmost limits of his powers of persuasion and physical powers was endeavouring to be either returned to the House or to become a Member for the first time. Now, it seems, scarcely are we assembled than the great question before us which makes a noise inside and outside the House is that there should be more money for us as Members of Parliament than that which was payable as we stood for election.
I do not believe that the House will escape from that embarrassment by the discovery of a clever formula or by transferring to anybody, however distinguished or expensive, a responsibility and a duty of decision which is its own. The nature of the embarrassment arises from the conception which we attach to the nature of the salary. If that salary is the going rate for the job, the competitive rate in the market, we can test it by finding for how low a sum, if not for a positive payment, hon. Members can be found to stand for and secure election to the House. [Interruption.] If there is to be an appeal to the market that is how the appeal to the market runs.

Mr. Peter Snape: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Powell: I shall not give way because I intend to be brief.

Mr. Snape: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

Mr. Powell: It is late and therefore I must ask the hon. Gentleman to forgive me if I do not give way.
If we are to equate ourselves with another calling or occupation and take that as our valuation, with whom are


we to equate the status, responsibility and honour of a Member of Parliament? The hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) quoted, to the amusement of the House, several figures considerably above £19,000 which are paid to comparatively humble servants of the House. Whatever figure we choose, that will be the valuation that we have put upon ourselves and at which we shai I be taken by the country at large.
In my view, the salary is essentially an arbitrary if not a nominal figure. It must be such that it cannot be mistaken for a full valuation in money terms, of the abilities of hon. Members, their services and their labours, or of the place which they occupy in the constitution of this country. The figure should be such that it could not in any way be mistaken for the going rate, for remuneration or for the salary which individual hon. Members might command if we had taken a choice other than that which we and the electorate took on 9 June. [HoN. MEMBERS: "How much will it be?") I consider that, viewed in that light, the present figure is perfectly adequate and ought not to be increased. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Back to 1900."].
However far we care to go back into history, whether it be to the 1900s or to the 1800s, and however highly we may think of ourselves in the House, we shall find a House of Commons to which this House of Commons is not superior. Because we will not face the nature of the salary, we get ourselves into the constant embarrassments, Parliament after Parliament, of attempting of upgrade the salary by the annual movement in the rate of inflation, selecting a grade in the Civil Service with which to equate ourselves or having a figure produced for us by an external body that we have chosen to make the arbiter over us of that which we are worth. I believe that we do ourselves an injury—

Mr. Dykes: rose—

Mr. Powell: I will not give way. I wish to be brief and I shall presently conclude. I believe that Nye do ourselves an injury in the esteem of the House and in the eyes of the public by not honouring to the full the stature and privilege of being a Member of the House. Those who wanted to be Members of the House have always found:he means to be Members.

Mr. Dykes: Will the right hon. Gentle man give way?

Mr. Powell: No, I will not give way. [Interruption.] I am not giving way.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has made it very plain that he is not giving way.

Mr. Powell: Figures have been quoted in the debate, to the shame of those who quoted them, of the sums paid to members of other assemblies. I do not admit for a moment that we should judge the status or the honour of this House by comparing the emoluments of its members with what is paid in assemblies junior and inferior to this. [HON. MEMBERS: "A banana monarchy."]
I shall therefore claim my right today to vote, if it is possible, against any increase in the present salary which seems to me properly to serve what I regard as its purpose. I said this four years ago and I hold the same view today.

Mr. Dykes: rose—

Mr. Powell: I have said that I am not giving way. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to keep me on my feet—[HON. MEMBERS: "Did you take the increase?") I have

taken no increase within the duration of any Parliament to which I have been elected. Throughout every Parliament I have remained in receipt of the salary that was payable when I stood for election and was elected. That has been the principle on which I personally have acted.
I wish to comment on a later motion relating to reimbursable expenses. I wholly welcome the move to ensure that reimbursement is made through the Fees Office. It has been a crying scandal that we have claimed and obtained reimbursement without providing any of the evidence that would be required by the Inland Revenue to offset expenses against tax. Now, at least, we shall be required to submit the evidence to the Fees Office, and I take it that the Fees Office will be under a duty to communicate that information to the Inland Revenue if required. By doing that, we shall at least remove one blot which has remained on our reputation for far too long. Therefore, among all the propositions that I oppose that is one that I applaud and support.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and I have followed each other—generally I have followed him—in these debates. He has not changed his view and neither have I. He is an honourable man who puts his views sincerely, but I think he is wrong. He could have put his argument when parliamentary pay was first introduced, because that would have been a change. In those days many hon. Members were paid, but by outside interests and not by Parliament.
What I call the Down, South argument alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman is a matter of serious disagreement between us. It could be that instead of paying Members of Parliament, the job could be advertised with the condition that, once elected, Members would pay a tax of, say, £3,000, which would provide exactly 650 candidates for 650 seats. In those circumstances, I believe, neither the right hon. Gentleman nor I would be satisfied with the House of Commons.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: That is the going rate.

Mr. Bottomley: The right hon. Gentleman may make sendentary interventions if he wishes, but if he prefers to stand up and do it properly I shall gladly give way.

Mr. Powell: I was following what I took to he the meaning of the expression "going rate" or "rate for the job", which had been used earlier in the debate.

Mr. Bottomley: It might be a courtesy to me if not to the House if the right hon. Gentleman would listen to what I am saying rather than voice random thoughts that pass through his mind.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to proposals to upgrade the salaries or status of Members of Parliament, but the Government's proposals seek merely to avoid the downgrading of Members' salaries. I approach the debate, not in terms of the short-term decision that the House will take today, in which I shall support the Government, but on a long-term basis. I asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, whom I am delighted to see here now, whether it was her policy permanently to reduce the pay of hon. Members by 25 per cent. of the value established by the House in 1979 and previously recommended by the Top Salaries Review Body. Her answer, which will appear in tomorrow's Hansard, was:


No. Decisions on pay of hon. Members are taken by the House. The Government have a duty to advise the House, taking all factors into account.
On the Government's specific proposals for long-term arrangements since May 1979, the House will also find four statements in tomorrow's Official Report. I do not propose to read them all out. However, I propose to make my statement of what the long-term policy should be. I am looking beyond this Parliament.
The argument that I have put in public and to which I shall stick through thick or thin, whatever pressure is put on me by Sir John Junor, and whatever praise I might get from Lady Falkender— I am not sure which is more dangerous to a Member of Parliament—is the argument of the excluded middle. The poor can afford to become Members of Parliament and the rich can afford to become Members of Parliament, but, in the long term, it is important that the people in the middle should be able to contemplate a parliamentary career without it having a devastating impact on their finances, in addition to the other stresses and strains of being a Member of Parliament.
I believe that I am a good Member of Parliament, and I enjoy being one, but if Members' pay continues to be degraded there will come a time, relatively soon, when I shall stop being a Member of Parliament. I am not suggesting that that is a decisive argument for Members' pay, one way or the other, because one person never matters. However, as an example of many of the people whom Governments and private industry recruit and of whom at times other than when Parliament is deciding this issue, newspapers sometimes say there should be more in the House, I believe that we should bring the arguments together.
In two years' time, as happened two years ago, we might read in the press that there are too many lawyers here. The reason for that is that it is possible to combine being a practising lawyer with being a Member of Parliament and it is possible, as a practising lawyer, to make the time to become a Member of Parliament.
A year after that we shall probably hear industry ask why there are not more hon. Members with serious industrial and commercial experience. There will be two answers to that. First, most industrial and commercial employers do not take kindly to an employee saying, "Do you mind if I have one and a half days off a week to get myself selected and elected?" Some advanced employers are willing to take the risk, but most look askance at the employee who wants to do that.
Secondly, the pay which the Top Salaries Review Body has recommended, and that which the Government have recommended—we are discussing a difference of about £3,000 or £4,000 over three or four years—is equivalent to what industry and commerce would pay for a competent and effective person. I refer to a person who, if a Government supporter and perhaps tied as a PPS, might persuade the Government to accept a change in the law or provide a lead on issues of the kind in which I have been involved during the past four years. That type of person in industry or commerce is likely to be able to earn £20,000 plus a car and able to go home at 6 o'clock in the evening.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: My hon. Friend does not know much about industry.

Mr. Bottomley: I kindly advise my hon. Friend in public that my industrial experience is, I suspect, more direct and extensive than his. It is also probably more successful than his, although I doubt whether my income has been near his. It might have been higher, but I suspect that it has been lower.
I strongly support what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said about mileage. I wrote to the Plowden committee saying that there ought to be a two-tier payment. When I was a personnel adviser in industry recently—a position which I gave up partly because I thought that the Plowden report would be implemented —I made it policy that people who did a high mileage did not get a high marginal rate for every mile.
That is not a commercial deal. In my view, it is not a necessary deal, although I declare an interest in that my constituency is seven miles from London and consists of 12 square miles. I say in public what I said in private to Plowden, that I thought it right to have a limit that changes after the first so many thousand miles. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Why?"] The simple reason is that 9,000 miles a year produces a reimbursable payment—if that is the right expression—of about £2,200, and at a rate of 14p a mile after that it is about double the cost of 25 miles to the gallon. So there is still a contribution towards the overall running costs of the car. [Interruption.] I get 25 miles to the gallon, but my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who may talk as he drives, may get less.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend is casting aspersions on me, and perhaps on others. He has admitted that he represents a seat which is seven miles from London, 12 miles square, and involves him in very little motor mileage. There are many hon. Members who cover thousands of miles a year, and in travelling large distances perhaps do not use a Mini or a Metro. They have to use a slightly larger car, which is rather more expensive on fuel. I suggest to my hon. Friend and to the Leader of the House that 14p a mile for a larger car does not cover the cost of running that car. So there could well be hon. Members who would be deterred from carrying out their duties and visiting their constituents because of having to do it out of their earned income.

Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. I do not happen to agree with what he says, but it is well worth consideration by the House. I put my own view, as I did to Plowden.
I want to make three brief points. The first is that in 1948 Douglas Jay recommended to Stafford Cripps that the pay of Members of Parliament should be linked to that of assistant secretaries. Certainly Douglas Jay—if not Stafford Cripps — regretted that that advice was not accepted. I find no embarrassment in talking about this issue, either in public or in the House, and I shall go on talking about it, within reason, for as long as I am here.
Secondly, I greatly welcome the acceptance by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of the motion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) about the proportion of the pay of Members of Parliament that Ministers get. I understand that the reason for Ministers in this House not getting full Members' pay has to do with comparability between Ministers in this House and in the other place. I feel strongly that the sooner Ministers in this House receive more of, and then all, the


pay of Members of Parliament, the better it will be for two reasons. First, they have to discharge all the duties of Members to their constituencies, and, secondly, it helps to narrow the differential between their pay when they are Ministers and their pay when they revert to the Back Benches. It is desirable that the financial sacrifice in no longer being a Minister should not be too great.
The only thing that I regret about deciding to support the Government is that I cannot take up the challenge put down by Sir John Junor in his article in the Sunday Express two and a half weeks ago. He and hon. Members will have seen my early-day motion. My view is that any hon. Members of this House who are tempted to do as Sir John Junor suggests—I leave aside recommendations to the Front Bench — against their better judgment, just because Sir John Junor says that he will campaign against their re-election and publish their names and constituencies, deserve not to get a penny increase, and not to be paid at all. However much I enjoy reading John Junor's current events column, I must say that if we do not have the guts to stand up to a newspaper editor, we do not deserve to be here. I shall end up tomorrow first by writing to him and inviting to lunch on whatever pay I receive, and secondly by volunteering to write four articles a year at £250 a time. I challenge him to accept my offer.

Mr. John Morris: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) was carried away by his own logic. The ultimate logic of his argument—that we should receive the pay of a Member of Parliament instead of the rate for the job—is that our salaries should not be maintained, but reduced. The greater Ithe reduction, the less embarrassment there would be to him.
The right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) said that this debate should never have taken place. He was long on protest but short on action. I shall deal briefly with his amendment. There is a constant nibbling of Plowden. First, there is a reduction from the £19,000 proposed to £18,500. There is the changing of the date for increasing pay from 13 June to 22 June. With the sole aim of taking the issue of pay out of the arena, the idea is canvassed and proposed that there should be a link with whatever civil servants are paid on 1 January 1988. However, I understand that they do not contribute to their pensions. The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) asked what the proposed salary would be worth four years from now. We have not ri:ceived a reply, although that is a crucial issue. Until that matter is dealt with, it will remain a ridiculous comparison and attempt at indexation to include in the proposal what would be in effect, if not a reduction in salary as suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman, certainly not an increase.
Given the reputation that the right hon. Member for Taunton is supposed to have in business, I wonder whether, on reflection, he is proud of his proposal. Has he not been sold a pup by the Government on each of those scores? This is the fundamental issue. If we are to have a Plowden report and be euphemistically dealt with by a top salaries body—and the only proposal from the right hon. Gentleman was to have yet another body, presumably a low salaries body, to report in future—and if there is to be a real attempt at indexation, it must be on the basis of something near the figure that Plowden now agrees is the going rate for the job. I refer to the figure of £19,000, or thereabouts.
The Leader of the House must face up squarely to that issue. What basis does he use to calculate the equivalent of £18,500 four years from now?
The suggestion about mileage was made, I understand, without any previous consultations, and I regard it as disgraceful. The decision is based on the idea that the majority of hon. Members live in London, or have small urban constituencies, rather than large constituencies far away from London that they frequently reach by car. Of course, if Members travel by air, it matters not. But how can we provide on the same basis for one Member with a large constituency when another Member such as the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Bottomley) has a small urban constituency just seven miles from the House? That is grossly unfair and I hope that the Leader of the House will reflect further on that issue.
I regard the suggestion that there should be a reduction in secretarial allowances on the basis of an alleged increase in Members' salaries as particularly squalid. APEX. a union to which I am proud to belong, has put in a considerable amount of work and has submitted written and oral representations to Plowden on behalf of Members' secretaries. It was pleased that a considerable number of its views—such as on payments from the Fees Office, redundancy provisions, proposals on pensions and journeys — were accepted by Plowden. Unhappily, of course—this was not within the remit of Plowden— nothing could be done on accommodation, another disgraceful aspect. To go back on the recommendation of Plowden that a Member should be able to employ a high class, high calibre civil servant at rates comparable with the Civil Service rate and to have the assistance for a proportion of the time—half the time—of a research assistant, and to go back from the £13,000 proposed by Plowden and over a weekend reduce that to £11,000 I regard as squalid and I expect the Leader of the House to justify it.

Mr. David Howell: I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in the important sense that he spoke from principle, although, like the late lain Macleod, I think that I would get off the bus several stops before the right hon. Gentleman did in the line of his argument.
The best advice that anyone can give to Governments when they seek to put down a motion on sensitive topics and move into these turbulent and difficult waters is to find a principle and to get a mooring on it and stick to it as hard as they can. If I could see the principle on which the Government based their original motion, I would support that. I would not for a moment blame the Government if they were arguing that there should be an equality of sacrifice for top people and that, although an expert report had recommended certain levels of pay, it would he right to move away from those recommendations in the name of sacrifice, which many other people must make, and lake a small percentage instead. If I could see that principle, I would find myself ready to support the Government's proposition.
What do we find when we study the Government's proposals? Over the past year, in which Members of Parliament received 4 per cent., senior civil servants received very much more. In 1982–83, they received between 14 and 17 per cent. If there is to be an argument about equality of sacrifice, I am afraid that it is not to be


found in those figures or in the policies that have been pursued. Therefore, I am not able to moor alongside any principle that the Government have established. There is none.
Some Members have said that what was wrong with the Government's original proposition was that it elevated the expense element to the point where it exceeded the amount of pay drawn. That cannot be right. The Government were not well advised on that matter. It was not good for the House, and those Members who objected to it were right to do so.
The only sensible and responsible choice in a difficult position where we have to think not only of ourselves but of the nation and the wider interests for which we have been sent to the House to fight is between the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) and the amended version proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Sir H. Fraser). It is a difficult choice, but we must make it.

Mr. Fairbairn: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that, if we vote for the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), on the best predictions we will be voting for a salary in 1988 that is lower than our present salary? If we vote for the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Sir H. Fraser), presuming 1988 to be election year, we shall be voting for a huge increase to get the falling salary in line with the linked salary.

Mr. Howell: My hon. and learned Friend anticipates the point that I had intended to make. The choice is whether we link our salary to an £18,500 salary in 1983 or in 1987 or 1988. It should be the aim of every hon. Member to ensure that the purchasing power of £18,500 in 1983 remains as close as possible to the purchasing power of that salary in 1988. It should be our purpose to ensure that the inflationary virus is so driven out of the system that the depreciation in that salary is minimised. That is why many of us believe that inflation does such vast damage, not only to the entire nation but in the particular to the budgeting of families and hon. Members. They are the losers if we do not strain every sinew to ensure that that £18,500 purchasing power is as near as possible the same in 1988 as it is in 1983.
If we index ourselves to the £18,500 in 1983, it must be admitted that we lose some incentive to ensure that that salary keeps its purchasing power. We lose some incentive to ensure that it does not simply slide away and depreciate. We have a responsibility fo fight depreciation of our currency. If we link now, we lose some element of incentive. I therefore support the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton. The House, looking beyond itself as well as at its own affairs, would be wise and responsible to support it.
I have one plea to make to the Government. I have made it before, and I do so again. Please can we abolish the TSRB? It is not an effective body. Indeed, if we pass the motion tonight the House might not need to have anything further to do with it. It is a bottom salaries review board in many senses because it deals with much lower salaries than those paid in industry. It has not served our affairs well either in the House or in deciding salaries elsewhere. Other bodies could do that. We would be far better off without the TSRB.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I address the House with the feeling of odiousness at the fact that we are once again discussing a matter that is so difficult for many of us. Unlike many other hon. Members, I have no hopes or aspirations of being anything other than a Back-Bencher. Therefore, perhaps I view the issue somewhat differently.
I worked in manufacturing industry before entering the House. I have felt the difference between being in a reasonably good job and being a Member of Parliament. I have no income other than my parliamentary income. Because of family circumstances, my wife cannot earn a large salary. Therefore, as a family we are entirely dependent on the parliamentary income. The difference is fairly staggering. My income 12 or 13 years ago, in real terms and if I had received no promotion, was 50 per cent. to 100 per cent. greater than my present parliamentary income.
That is not my main case, however. I came into the job with my eyes open. I accepted the reduction in salary because I thought it was necessary to do the job of representing constituents. But the question we must face is what is the right rate for the job.
The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) thought that certain review bodies should be abolished. I suggest that matters would be easier if, when such bodies introduced reports, they were accepted much more readily, in the way that the Government accept Boundary Commission reports.
If one depends solely on one's parliamentary salary, that is not money going straight into one's pocket, and the public should appreciate that. Many expenses must be met, some of which have been mentioned. In trying to undertake a service to my constituents—I am sure that they appreciated this during the election campaign—I have a full-time secretary in my constituency, I find it necessary to have a part-time filing clerk and a part-time typist, and I share a secretary in the House of Commons so that I cover this end as well.
To do that, the cost is more than the allowances paid by the House. However, my work is subsidised, partly by my political party and partly from my salary. The same is true of the expense of living in London. I have a constituency 250 miles away; and therefore I spend 12 hours a week just in travelling. Part of my salary goes to make up the deficiency that is not otherwise met. Therefore, when we talk of our parliamentary salary, that is not money that goes straight into one's pocket.
Although I would press for the acceptance of the report's recommendations on salary, I would put even greater emphasis on the conditions of the staff working for hon. Members here, particularly our secretaries. Some of them are working in conditions in the House that are a disgrace. Indeed, if those conditions were prevalent in the industry in which I was working, we should have got a roasting for allowing it. We need improved conditions and better salaries for secretaries.
Given the responsibilities and burden of work that Members have in this modern age, it is not unreasonable for us to ask for one research officer each, and that is what the £13,000 proposal would permit; we could have a young graduate as a research officer. If the report's £13,000 recommendation on research and secretarial assistance was valid last week on the basis of an hon. Member's needs, by what token is that need now £2,000


less? In other words, if the argument was valid last week, it must be valid today. In no way should that argument be confused with the argument concerning hon. Members' salaries. If one thing will make the public think that the expenses paid to Members are some sort of fiddle to top up salaries, it will be seeing the expenses put up and then brought down, as we see in the amendments.
I would press strongly for improvements in the facilities in Parliament for Members to do their job as the prime objective. We must, at the same time, decide the going rate for the job; not necessarily what we would get in industry but what is a fair rate to enable hon. Members who want to be full-time Members not to undertake any other job but to do so without feeling the squeeze, perhaps in the end finding it impossible to sustain.
If that is not done, we shall be admitting that there are two classes of Members, some with private incomes—from whatever source — who car subsidise their parliamentary work and others who do not have such private resources. That would be discrimination and would lead—I appreciate that many Conservative Members do not agree—to pressure being put on hon. Members to do nothing but be full-time Members. I appreciate the arguments against that, but unless those with other incomes recognise the situation facing Back Benchers who do not, the pressure will move in that direction. I find that between 60 and 70 hours a week are taken up by parliamentary work. To do that work effectively we need secretarial and research support and salary commensurate with the job.

Mr. Christopher Chope: It is with considerable trepidation that I rise to make my maiden speech in this controversial debate. As I know that there are many right hon. and hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate, I shall cut short my remarks about the city of Southampton and my predecessor, Mr. Bob Mitchell. I pay tribute to Bob Mitchell, who served the Itchen constituency so well over many years. I know that the people of Southampton feel strongly that he represented their interests regardless of whether they happened to support his party. I have a difficult job ahead of me in trying to emulate his achievements as a constituency Member of Parliament.
Yesterday I received a desk and a telephone, and my secretary now has a telephone. That being so, I have much to celebrate. It is appropriate that Members should count their blessings. I count mine as someone who was elected to the House for the first time on 9 June, for I had not necessarily expected to be elected. There are about 3 million who are unemployed and what we say in this debate will be heeded by the unemployed and by the many outside the House who have made greater sacrifices than some of us are prepared to make tonight.
I ask the House to accept the motion of the Leader of the House, which I consider to be preferable to the amendment of my right hon. Friend ithe Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann). In all the circumstances, it would be reasonable to take a decision for just one year. It would be a mistake to link our salaries and payments with those in the Civil Service, because the Government would have a vested interest in fixing the remuneration of civil servants and we would automatically be t.ed in with them. Why should judges and admirals not be tied in with them at present? Any notion of Members being tied in with civil

servants' salaries and pay scales is wrong, and for that reason I should find substantial difficulty in supporting the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton. I hope that the Leader of the House will he able to persuade the House to vote for the substantive motion in an unamended form.
We must set an example to those outside the House in recognition of the considerable feeling that Members do not reflect the feelings of ordinary people. I know that many in Southampton have made substantial sacrifices to enable Britain to get back on its economic feet. Last year hon. Members accepted a 4 per cent. increase in their remuneration, and I should like to think that they set a valuable example to the country. At that time inflation was running ahead of 4 per cent. and now we are all delighted that it has declined to 3·7 per cent. Over the next few years we have a chance of making Britain a low inflation country. I hope that we shall not do anything tonight that will jeopardise our chance of setting an example for Britain and for many other countries in the western world. The battle to reduce inflation and to keep it under control is vital, and the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House are most in keeping with what can be afforded.
I wish to have the freedom in this Parliament to say publicly to those involved in pay bargaining that, although they may think it desirable that they should have pay increases, their firms and the country cannot afford them. Many of us said to pensioners during the election campaign that it was marvellous that they were going along with the rest of us and making sacrifices in the national interest. I said to pensioners in Southampton that a 3·7 per cent. pension increase, in line with inflation, was reasonable in the circumstances, although I, like many other hon. Members, would like them to get real rises in income. I do not see how we can vote ourselves real rises when we are not prepared to give them to pensioners and many others. Of course, the consequences of paying such rises would be devastating for the economy.
I was leader of Wandsworth council for three and a. half years and was, in effect, an employer of those who worked for the council. I believe that public sector workers are prepared to make sacrifices if a lead is given from the top. Many employees of Wandsworth council were priced out of their jobs, and we should set an example to them. We had difficult decisions to take in Wandsworth and we adopted the principle that councillors should set an example.
I remind hon. hon. Members that many councillors have a major responsibility for controlling inflation and ensuring that local government expenditure is kept under control. They receive a pittance compared with what hon. Members are paid. Often, they do not accept the special responsibility allowances or the full attendance allowances. Rates in Southampton are lower now than they were in 1976, and that achievement has been made possible only because of the considerable sacrifices made by local councillors.
I ask hon Members to think of other people, including those who run small businesses, work much longer hours than we do and often face greater risks for less reward. We were prepared to be paid £X last year, so why are we not prepared to be paid £X plus 4 per cent. in the coming year? If we were able to manage last year, surely we should be able to manage in the coming year. In so doing, we shall be setting the right tone for the difficult battles that lie


ahead on public expenditure and the control of inflation. That is why I support the recommendations of the Leader of the House.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: I congratulate the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) not only on his eloquence but on his courage, if not foolhardiness, in making a maiden speech on such an occasion. His appreciation of the wisdom of taking one year at a time under this Government has not escaped the House. If he has both a telephone and a desk so early in his parliamentary career, that is proof positive of the success of the improved conditions for Members which the Leader of the House seeks to provide.
Some aspects of the increase in secretarial and research allowances may have escaped the attention of the House. The salaries of secretaries and research assistants will be paid through the Fees Office. Motion No. 4 in the name of the Leader of the House introduces one limit for salaries and another limit for general office expenses, but amendment (b) thereto, which the Leader of the House has recommended to the House, abolishes that distinction. Therefore, it conflicts with the provision sought by the Secretaries' Council, which it believed had been agreed by the Leader of the House and which was embodied in the motion. Amendment (b) will reopen the door to the abuses about which the Secretaries' Council had good reason to be worried.
The argument of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) that it is wrong for expenses to be greater than salary reflects a sense that expenses are a racket or abuse, and that there is something wrong with them. That would be absurd if we considered expenses as the salaries of those who work for us. What employer considers it a proper measure of the total wage bill of those who work for him that it should be less than his salary? That absurd argument reflects a wrong idea of parliamentary expenses. Members' expenses are different. We do not all go up to the limit of what we can draw in stationery, car parking and the subsidised refreshment department. It would be absurd for us to try. The right approach is to pitch the expense allowances at a level adequate to meet the expenses incurred by hon. Members, and then to require evidence from Members that that is necessary expenditure. We should not expect all hon. Members always to claim up to the limit for the expenses that they can incur.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is wrong to assume that Mr. Speaker will set up arrangements for the payment of general office expenses. He will set up arrangements only for secretarial and research expenses. It would be impractical for him to lay down the requirements for the home use of telephones, overseas telephone calls, or any of the many legitimate expenses that hon. Members can incur in the category of general office expenses.
Amendment (b) to motion No. 4, which abolishes the distinction between secretarial and research allowances and general office expenses, is the wrong way to obtain proper flexibility in the provision for Members. The amendment of the right hon. Member for Taunton—he is aware of this, but other hon. Members may not be—would leave hon. Members with £13,000 a year this year in secretarial and research allowances but would reduce it

to £11,000 in later years. I suspect that the leader of the House realised belatedly that that £2,000 error had crept in. Therefore, he encouraged a Back-Bench Member, who has not yet spoken, but who I hope will explain what happened, first to table a mis-formulated amendment, which was the previous amendment (b) to motion No. 4, and then to correct it belatedly only on today's Order Paper. Thus, an amendment tabled only today rules out all the other amendments that have been tabled to this motion.
Amendment (c) in the names of the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Lloyd), myself and others takes the right approach to providing the appropriate flexibility in hon. Members' allowances. It does not seek to restore the secretarial and research allowances to £13,000, but on top of the £11,000 it creates a limit for information technology and word processing so that those who wish to—it may not be a majority—can properly equip themselves. Even you, Mr. Speaker, cannot get to your office without falling over information technology and word processing equipment. The same is true of the Clerk's Department. The only people in the House who are denied proper provision are hon. Members. The only people who will provide the equipment for hon. Members is ourselves, by a vote on the Floor of the House. I therefore hope that in all realism, amendment (c) will commend itself to Conservative Members, as I am sure it will to my hon. Friends.
I stress that the appropriate flexibility is not provided for by abolishing the distinction between research and general office expenses, which will bring to light— I assure the Leader of the House of this—many abuses of which the Secretaries' Council is aware, which it thought that it had fully explained to the Leader of the House, but on which he has now totally let it down. I hope, therefore, that he will reconsider the terms on which he recommends the amendment of the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) to the House.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I speak as somebody who represents a constituency which is 450 miles from London and which is of vast size. There is no doubt that in the House the rewards for a Member of Parliament are greatly reduced by the distance he lives from London and the size of the constituency he represents, but that is not understood.
I reject the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) and the amendment to his amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Sir H. Fraser). I do so for this reason. The House has fudged the issue of its own pay again and again. It has done it on the basis that this is not the economic moment to have the courage to get it right. All that I can say is that I do not believe that the Leader of the House or any other Member can tell me that in the present economic circumstances, if he is going to be such a funk at the moment, he will not be such a funk in the future. If inflation is running at 30 per cent., one cannot have an increased salary because it feeds inflation. If inflation is running at nil per cent., one cannot have an increased salary because one does not need it. Every year since I came to the House, a false economic argument has been presented to prevent hon. Members and Ministers from doing what they believe is right.
Therefore, we are in the absurd position tonight that we are saying that the matter is so distasteful that the children


cannot choose their own food. They might choose caviare and lobster, so we shall ask somebody else to choose. The moment we get somebody else, at the cost of £1 million, to say what it will be, we say that those people cannot choose the food, as it is too important a matter. The children must choose it themselves. We cannot have it both ways. If there is one characteristic that I look for in the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House, it is not fudging. We must not fudge the issue tonight. We are talking not about a wage increase but about the correct salary structure for Members of Parliament.
I refer to the penalty for distance and size. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) lives seven miles from Westminster, and represents half a square mile. If one is a member of the legal profession in England, one can wander off and earn a fortune at the Old Bailey in the morning and come back to the House at 4 o'clock. That cannot be done if one happens to be a barrister or advocate in Scotland. I gi ve an illustration because some people who argue about hon. Members' pay, argue as though we all represent seats within walking distance of Big Ben.
There is an amendment in my narri, about spouses' warrants. We used to be allowed 12 spouses' warrants a year. There are three categories of Members of Parliament. There are those who represent constituencies and live within a distance from the House which enables them to go home every night to their spouses. There are those who represent seats to which they can easily drive home with their spouses at weekends at public expense. There are those who do not fall into either of those categories and who, rather like a lifer ir the special unit at Barlinnie, are allowed 15 conjugal visits a year.
It is wrong that those hon. Members who do not live within driving distance of their spouses should have to pay if they want to be with them — spending the week in London and the weekend in their constituencies. It is a penalty of £3,000 a year out of taxed income.
I do not object to hon. Members' families being with them if their marriages are to remain intact, but I object to the fact that those of us who cannot live with our spouses, or drive backwards and forwards with them at public expense should be allowed 15 warrants a year only for our spouse while the children—whether from present or past marriages—of those who live nearby or who can drive home, can each have 15 visits to London a year.
If the argument against giving spouse warrants to those who live far away is one of expense, I dc not understand why the children of those who live close to the House are to have 15 visits a year to London. I ask on behalf of all those who live at a distance that that wrong should be corrected urgently.
If the Leader of the House seeks to penalise those hon. Members with large rural areas to cover, which is an additional strain when we go to our constituencies at weekends, by refusing a motor allowance while others can use public transport at any time with a free warrant, he will do himself and the Government great harm.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: I wish to raise the subject of hon. Members' severance pay, which has not been mentioned so far. In the last Parliament, because the constituency boundaries changed and the seats changed hands, about 80 hon. Members were suddenly thrown out of a job with a couple of weeks notice. The severance pay

that they received was not up to the levels existing outside the House. I can quote from today's Daily Express which says:
From the Commons to the dole.
The article lists some of the prominent Members: Bill Rodgers, Albert Booth, Roland Moyle, Tom Bradley,—[Interruption.] It is no laughing matter when people lose their jobs after a lifetime of hard work. Many new Members may have to face that in three or four years' time. The writers of the article talked to people who are experts in placing top people into a job, and say:
According to a top head-hunter the chances for most of them of ever finding work at a comparable salary are virtually nil.
Mr. Robert Arkle, whose firm Robert Lee International has already been contacted by a number of ex-MPs seeking executive posts, said: I told them being an MP is no qualification at all. In fact, it is a negative qualification.
Business and commerce except in the case of senior ministers who have had high level negotiating experience, do not want to know about people who have been given the push from the Commons.
The man with a profession to return to will probably find some work, but the MP who has risen through the ranks of a union hasn't got much of a hope in hell
Some 65 per cent. of hon. Members made a recommendation to the Plowden committee that something should be done about such problems. Time and again, it was strongly stressed when we were interviewed. and in the questionnaires that we sent in, that the level of severance pay for hon. Members was unsatisfactory. Those who had some sort of technical job, but were Members for 15 years, found that all their technology was outdated, and that since they had come to the House, the years of the microchip and new developments had made all their previous skills useless. The expertise that they had acquired in the House— in using Standing Order No. 10, serving on a Standing Committee, the procedures of the House, or their constituents' problems—was of no use to them.
Many Members lose their seats when they are about 50, and have nothing to turn to, except to start again, perhaps in some corner shop or something of that nature. It is too soon to do an analysis of those who lost their seats a couple of weeks ago, many of them because of boundary changes. This happened to Conservative Ministers, just as it happened to Labour Back-Benchers.
When an analysis was done a year after the last election, in 1980, there were still former Members ow of work, including experienced people and Ministers. At that time, unemployment was about 1·25 per cent., or 1·5 per cent. Today, the problem is worse. However, although 65 per cent. of Members said that Members' severance pay was not good enough, this was ignored by the Plowden committee, and it is being ignored by the Government in their proposals. There have to be some Members in marginal seats. Politics could not function without them. If unemployment becomes more long-term, more people will stand in these seats, often people of high calibre.
There are two types of redundancy pay. First, there is that when a man is made redundant in a factory where he has worked as a lathe operator, a fitter, or a draughtsman, as I used to be. It is a terrible blow for him, but at least there are other factories where he can apply for a job, and might be fitted in in six or 12 months' time. He can feel that his talent has not gone.
Secondly, there are redundancies in industries such as coal mining and shipbuilding, where a whole town goes to the wall, and many people feel that they will never work


again, because the industry is smashed. Such redundancies attract much higher redundancy pay, because a man who has been made redundant in a steel town such as Consett or Corby at the age of 54 or 55 is likely never to work again. Therefore, special payments and provisions are made. In politics, we have to accept that many hon. Members who are made redundant at the age of 50-odd will be lucky to get any job.
If an hon. Member is 45, and has done 10 years' service, he gets six months' salary. A teacher who is made redundant at that age would not only get six months' salary but would get one sixth of his salary on top of that for many years. A civil servant made redundant at that age would not only get six months' pay but would get about £100 a week until he was 60 years old. A manual worker in a shipyard who was made redundant at that age would get 40 weeks' pay and about £80 a weeek for the next two years. The amendment that we have tabled asks for nothing that is out of line with that given to those who have lost similar jobs in similar industries. It has been said that the cost of producing the report — £1 million was mentioned, and that included the outside consultancy fee, and somebody else referred to £169,000 — was much greater than the cost of the amendment would be.
It would give a great deal of reassurance to people who take on marginal seats in politics to know that if they are elected they will not be suddenly tossed on the scrapheap after five or 10 years, causing their families to suffer. Without that there will be a great deal of pressure on prospective Members from spouses not to go into politics because the risk will be thought to be too great when there are 3 million unemployed and many more middle-aged middle-class executives out of a job.
The amendment seeks to double severance pay, making it for a minimum of a year. That is not out of line with other industries, it is not exorbitant and can be defended to the public. That is why we are glad that the amendment was selected and we shall vote for it tonight.

Mr. John Stokes: I cannot be alone in not having greatly enjoyed much of the debate. I agree with some of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) said about equality of sacrifice. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) on a fluent speech, although he chose a difficult subject on which to make a maiden speech. My heart went out to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) on what he said, particularly about our superiority to foreigners. On the other hand, my head could not entirely agree with all his conclusions.
I always find that I have a conflict of interests in these debates because I have spent the greater part of my business and industrial life dealing with salaries—salary administration and salary levels—both in large British companies and in my own firm.
We are attempting in the debate tonight to take a professional view on a matter on which one really cannot have a professional view. We are asking ourselves how long a piece of string is. After being here for 13 years, I was flattered to be asked to give my views to the consultants who came to see us. Over the years I have

always been fascinated by the subject of salaries. I think that I am now so good that I could almost tell a man's salary from the colour of his eyes.
I have a professional feeling of solidarity with the distinguished members of the review body whom we specially asked to advise us and two of whom I know well. However, it is rather futile to ask those experts to advise us when we never take their advice. [Horn. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The sooner the review body is put to sleep the better.
At the same time, hon. Members will know that I have supported the Government ever since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister took office in May 1979. With the exception of one or two immigration matters, I have voted with the Government every time. I shall, with some reluctance, be with them tonight because I realise the immense importance of the public interest. However, we have got ourselves into an infernal mess and I hope that we shall not go on doing this year after year.
I have a few words of advice to the Government, which I hope they will heed. It always seems to me most unfortunate when the Government make proposals which result in a violent clash with their Back Benchers. That is bad publicity, bad for the House and bad for the Conservative party. I suggest that a little consultation beforehand with sensible colleagues who have some knowledge of these matters would not come amiss in future.
Reluctantly, I accept the compromise motion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), although I do not like linkage at all. Members' salaries cannot be linked with anybody else's. Their job is unique, and although I accept most of the allowances I cannot bear the idea of being treated as if we were receiving benefits from the Department of Health and Social Security in having our children's visits paid for by the state. Surely we should be paid sufficient salaries so that we can afford to send our children here at our own expense.
I read a report in The Times of 15 July—I hope that it is not true — that Government Whips had been informing new Members that if they did not vote for the 4 per cent. line they would never be promoted and would even be blacked from the most junior position of Parliamentary Private Secretary. I have been a Member of the House long enough to know that the blood-curdling stories of the Whips' doings are not always true. I do not believe that my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip would have authorised such action. Throughout the time that I have been a Member of Parliament I have never received any threat of any kind from any Whip. Any hon. Member worth his salt will make his own decisions acording to his own knowledge and conscience.
I wish to speak about Ministers' salaries. I fully realise the Government's desire to keep salaries in the public sector down, but this Tory Government must pay some regard to differentials and the rate for the job. After all, we are not an egalitarian party. We believe in suitable rewards. Ministers cannot do another job. Their jobs—I hope that they are listening—are vital to the nation and should be properly paid.
Under-Secretaries of State are especially badly paid here and scandalously underpaid in the other place. Ministers of State are also underpaid, as are Cabinet Ministers. Even in stern Victorian times, and earlier, some Cabinet Ministers received an annual salary of £5,000, which is worth more than £100,000 today. Ministers today


do not usually own vast estates—I wish they did—with big rent rolls as they did in the 19th century. Nor can they make money on the side, as they did in the 17th century —sometimes, as Macaulay said, accumulating an estate sufficient to support a dukedom.
The review body has made a good case for substantially increasing Ministers' pay now.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Stokes: If my hon. Friend does not mind, I shall not give way. I have waited a long time to speak and my hon. Friend says a great deal, although I greatly admire what he says.
There is a curious puritanical streak in the House about Ministers' pay. We rightly insist on proper standards of pay for judges, civil servants, the armed forces and the police. As we have heard, our servants in the House are properly paid. There is something inherently distasteful in paying Ministers so badly in comparison not only with outside rates but with the senior civil servants with whom they deal every day.
I realise that Ministers cannot raise such matters themselves, but at least I can say what [think, as I do not think I shall be made a Minister in the near future. The labourer is worthy of his hire and Ministers are dreadfully badly paid compared with their foreign counterparts although they are much better at the job. It is neither sound nor sensible to have government on the cheap. I hope that the members of the Cabinet will have the courage to reconsider the level of their own salaries.

Mr. Peter Snape: In view of the time and the number of hon. Members wishing to participate, I shall be brief.
First, I endorse the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and commend our amendment (a) to motion No. 7 on the thorny and deep-rooted problems of redundancy and resettlement. I should perhaps declare half an interest in that I am only 296 votes off applying for a resettlement grant myself. As my hon. Friend said, more than 80 former Members from all political parties left the House in June. It would not be over-generous for the House to accept our amendment. If the traditionally hard-hearted members of the Tory payroll vote cannot bring themselves to support it, I remind them that at some time in the future—not too long ahead, I hope — they may themselves be the unfortunate recipients of the largesse that it seeks to provide.
Having participated in the debate on Members' pay as long ago as 1975, I vowed that I would not do so again. There is something uniquely distasteful about this annual ritual and both sides of the House under Governments of both parties seem to lack the courage to do anything about it. It is never the right time to vote oneself a pay rise. The Government now propose — and the 1922 Committee shop stewards seems not to have done much better—the usual jam tomorrow. No trade union worth its salt, having sent its pay claim to arbitration, would then reject the award because it was too high. In the nine years since I have been a Member, the House seems to have clung to the strange notion that some great public odium will fall upon us all if we accept the award recommended by the Top Salaries Review Body. Collectively, we are unlikely

to be popular whatever we do and the time is long overdue for the House to reach a decision about the long-term fixing of Members' pay.
As far back as 1975, my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw proposed that Members' salaries should be fixed at that of the Civil Service grade of assistant secretary. Speaking from memory, I think that the difference between the two salaries was then about £600. It is now £9,000. I am not saying that we are worth £23,000. Like hon. Members on both sides, I have no idea what the salary should be. The whole purpose of having a review body was for someone else to decide that thorny question for us. It is nonsense to go on rejecting the recommendations year after year under Governments of both parties.
It is also distasteful to hear the annual lecture about principles from the the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). We all know how much the right hon. Gentleman cherishes his public image, but he forfeited any respect from me in 1968. I am still waiting for those predictions to come true. I thought that they were unrealistic then and I still do. Let us not forget either that in the privacy of a televison studio or on the telephone to a newspaper editor the right hon. Gentleman really lives up to his market forces principles because financially he screws out every drop of blood that he possibly can. So let us have no hypocritical nonsense from him about doing the job for nothing, because to some of us that is just about what he is worth.
The right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) said that he had done his best on behalf of the House. Speaking from my experience on the railways as a convener of shop stewards, I would say that he would have great difficulty getting re-elected in a secret ballot arranged by the Government. To tell hon. Members that we must accept linkage over a five-year period provided that we are prepared to vote to take £2,000 per annum off people who are not represented directly in the House is hardly a way for a convener or shop steward to behave. It would be nonsense for hon. Members to accept these recommendations.
We will not be popular whatever we do. We should have the guts and the common sense to accept the Top Salaries Review Body's recommendations and stop behaving like a bunch of fools.

Mr. Edward Heath: I agreed with my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) when he said that this was a matter that must be decided by the House of Commons. It is the second time in less than a week that we have had a major debate in which individual Members have had to reach a general conclusion.
I am quoted at the beginning of the Sixth Report on Top Salaries as having created the Top Salaries Review Body in September 1971. It quotes me as saying that the
recommendations of the Review Body will be accepted by the Government unless there are clear and compelling reasons to the contrary".
As has been pointed out, we accepted the first report without qualification. The result was that there was not a great debate in the country and there was not a great onslaught by the press. The matter was settled and removed speedily from public discussion.
What has interested me about today's discussion is that there has been almost no discussion of the contents of the report. We have been given no clear and compelling reasons why the report should not be accepted. I do not recall my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House mentioning the reports contents or saying why he thinks the review body has gone wrong, where, and what ought to be done about it. That is serious.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) said that the sooner the review body was abolished the better. Others of my hon. Friends echoed that view and a few nodded their heads. I should like to issue a word of caution. Why was the review body established? We must accept that under our financial system, the House can never escape the responsibility of voting the funds for its salaries. If those salaries are changed, the voting on the fund changes. We can never escape that and we recognise it. The review body was established to remove the issue one phase from the House by making recommendations.
If we are not to have the review body, we must ask what the choices are. One is that a Government Department should make a recommendation. I do not believe that the House would accept that such a recommendation was impartial. Nor do I believe that outside observers would think that. Nor, indeed, do I think that any Government Department has the time that has been available to the review body to take evidence, examine it, and consider it carefully and take into account all the questions that arise out of membership of the House. Many of them have been discussed. I share the honour, privilege and other characteristics of being a Member of Parliament.
Another choice would be for a Select Committee to make recommendations. It, too, would not be one stage removed, and outside opinion would not believe that it was independent. Yet another choice is linkage. When the review body was set up, the feeling in the House in all quarters was strongly against linkage with the Civil Service. Perhaps that feeling is now less strong. My opinion remains the same. Because of all the special characteristics of the House, it is undesirable and unjustifiable to link the House to the Civil Service. One cannot argue that membership of this House has the same characteristics, or requires the same treatment, as a particular grade in the Civil Service.
One must also consider the attitude of the Civil Service to linkage. We are asking the Civil Service to carry the House through what it finds to be an unpleasant, difficult and objectionable business. We are not entitled to ask the Civil Service to do that. If I were a permanent secretary to a Department, or if I were a union leader of a Civil Service union, I would immediately say that any Government were bound to be affected in their treatment of the Civil Service pay by the recognition that the result would then be applied to the House of Commons. That is always bound to be unpopular. Why, therefore, should I as a permanent secretary, or the lowest civil servant, carry the House of Commons through this unpleasant and difficult business? I therefore cannot accept the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton that there should be linkage. I strongly oppose linkage, and I believe that the House of Commons must accept the responsibility of deciding its policy on recommendations from outside.

Mr. Gorst: Before my right hon. Friend disposes of all the options that are open, will he comment on a further one — perhaps only to dismiss it? What about the Government of the day making a firm recommendation after receiving the review body's proposals?

Mr. Heath: I fully appreciate that point. That was another reason why we set up the review body. It was also to remove the Government at one stage from the controversy. If the Government say, "We accept the review body's recommendations. It is now for the House of Commons to decide, by amendment, whether it wants to change them," the House of Commons then clearly bears the responsibility. At present the Government carry the responsibility, and the Government are taking the odium from the House of Commons. People outside take into consideration other characteristics.
That brings me to my last point. My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton said that the second matter of importance to him was service. Service can be interpreted in a number of ways. I agree with my right hon. Friend that personal service is desirable and essential in the House of Commons, but the other aspect of service is service to the community and to the people whom we represent. I do not believe that the best service can be rendered to the community by Ministers or Members of the House who do not feel that they are getting a reasonable remuneration for carrying out their duties. The community will not get the best service that way. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) about Ministers where the same argument applies.
For almost all the time that I have been a member of the House of Commons we have discussed how the House can influence and control the Government. It is a historical argument, and it continues. When the late Dick Crossman was Leader of the House he started the process of creating more Select Committees to deal with certain Departments and subjects. That was carried on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and we now have the system of Select Committees. Dick Crossman was, I think, greatly influenced by the American Congress. He seemed to be trying to impose the American inquisitorial system of committees on top of the British parliamentary system. In our system the heart of Parliament has always been this Chamber and the debates that take place in it. This is the place where Ministers have to be challenged. If there is to be a successful challenge, it has to take place here. It is not done by Select Committees taking evidence. We know all too well that a report is published, gets a short headline in the press, and is possibly mentioned at Question Time. It is usually not debated and its effect is comparatively small.
The demands of the Select Committees on man and woman power are undoubtedly affecting our debates in the Chamber. That is why I feel that if there is to be good government, hon. Members in this Chamber must have the means to challenge the Government. That can be done only with resources. I do not understand the argument that the resources provided to an hon. Member to employ a research assistant or secretary must not come too close to his salary. That does not apply in any other sphere of activity.
I was thinking earlier of those tumultuous days of 1938 and 1939 when, as a student, I used to sit under the Gallery in the old House of Commons. Churchill, Anthony Eden, Duff Cooper, Harold Macmillan and many like them were


on the Back Benches. They had the resources themselves to do what was required. They could keep in touch with everything going on in Europe. They knew the defence situation just as well as—and sometimes better than—members of the Government. They could present the challenge. Today, most hon. Member; do not have those resources. Such Members of Parliament no longer exist. Therefore, resources have to be provided to hon. Members if they are to challenge the Government effectively and thus maintain the democratic system. That is why I believe that it is justifiable to ensure that lion. Members are remunerated properly and are given the resources that allow them to have their own information with which to challenge the Government.
Nobody recognises better than I do the difficulties of taking such a major step. I cannot accept the proposal made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton that there should be four stages, dragging on until 1988. We might then find ourselves with a major gap. I could have understood it if the Leader of the House had said that the review body had done a proper job and that the percentage was right. When we took the one step in 1972, it led to an increase of 30.8 per cent. That was a not inconsiderable increase, and we were not without our problems at the time. If the Leader of the House had said today that it was too much to do in one go, but that two stages might be acceptable, my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton, the chairman of the 1922 Committee, and the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand), the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, might well have reached agreement and we would not have had this controversy and lengthy debate. I had hoped that that would happen.
I regret that I cannot support the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton. It drags everything out for far too long. The real problem is always how to catch up. The only way of doing it is to recognise the facts of the case, which have been properly analysed by the review body, and to say quite openly and honestly to the public that if they want good government from Parliament, they must accept that. We recognise that sacrifices are still being made, but it is necessary to have good government, and it is good government in its broadest sense that this country requires.

Mr. Tony Banks: As a new Member of Parliament I have already discovered a number of the rather strange practices that the House indulges in. However, I cannot believe that there is any practice that is stranger than that which appears to determine hon. Members' pay and cOnditions.
Like hon. Membeis on both sides of the House, I have no great confidence in the way in which this process has been conducted, or in the way in which our unofficial, unelected and unaccountable shop stewards have produced the dog's dinner now before us. As as I can see, everything is done via a process of political osmosis, whereby hon. Members read in the newspapers about the things that are going ion behind the scenes to find a way out of the mess that the House apparently gets into at regular intervals.
That is no way to conduct the business of determining Members' pay and conditions, particularly when there is clearly great public interest in, and concern about, what we are doing. Nor do I think that we should be influenced

as Members by newspaper comments, particularly from hacks such as John Junor of the Daily Express. The House does not need lessons or lectures on pay and conditions from Fleet street journalists who are perhaps the most proficient expense account fiddlers in the country.
We are not likely to receive much public support for what we do because, whatever Members may think—tonight is rather exceptional because the House does not normally sit up so late indulging itself—it is difficult to complain about the nature of the job. Unlike many parts of industry, Members are not expected to clock on. The tea-breaks here can go on continuously, the bars are always open and we know that Members are not even required to turn up in order to claim their pay at the end of the month. We have heard complaints particularly from Conservative Members that they are not able to moonlight because they are too far away from their constituencies and the courts to earn another salary. It is difficult for us to gain public support for our position when Members complain they cannot adequately moonlight. This is supposed to be a full-time job and there is ample reason for Members to treat it as such.
Another reason why we are unlikely to gain public sympathy, leaving aside the Plowden report about which most new Members and the public at large knew nothing, is that just one month after the election we are trying to achieve a 31 per cent. pay increase. That does not do much for the credibility of the House.
The deal proposed in the amendment of the right hon. Member for Taunton is worse than that originally suggested by the Prime Minister. I do not wear a hair shirt but I know that Members of Parliament are already adequately paid. I have worked out that if the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is still receiving what he got when he first came to the House, he is probably getting 30 shillings a week. Members are paid adequately for the work that they do, but they do not get adequate resources to do their job. It is not pay levels that concern me but the resources that Members have at their disposal adequately to do their job.
As a new Member, I have been intrigued by some of the practices of the House. I am appalled at the conditions that exist in the House. There are great expanses of green leather, a great deal of marble and large number of chandeliers around the House. That is the surface appearance, but behind the scenes we have what amounts to a legislative slum. When I consider the conditions under which Members are expected to work, I cannot see how they can be expected adequately to do their job.
Unlike one of my hon. Friends who mentioned his facilities and the Conservative Member who said that he had managed to get a desk, I am still trying to find my desk. I am sure that I have one and I am told that it is in the cloisters. I have seen "the cloisters" and that appears to be a posh term for a corridor. The desks face each other. If Her Majesty's Factory Inspectorate came to the House it would probably declare that we work in sub-standard conditions.
In my constituency, which suffered badly from the previous incumbent, I am required to deal with hundreds of cases. I cannot handle those cases with the poor facilities and resources at my disposal.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman because of the general noise.

Mr. Banks: I represent a London constituency and live in London, and I admit that that is a distinct advantage. I can go to my constituency every day and hold my surgeries. Large numbers of people come to see me, and I do my best to give them what advice I can. But the actual resources that I can make available from my allowances as a Member of Parliament are inadequate to deal with the many problems I confront in my constituency.
I used to work as a ministerial adviser. I know—

Mr. Straw: When my hon. Friend worked as a Ministerial adviser, did he not earn more than Members of Parliament at that time? did he accept that salary?

Mr. Banks: Of course I accepted that salary,. I also accepted the conditions, resources and facilities available to me, which were massively better than those available to Back Bench Members. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr.Heath) said that one of the roles of Members of Parliament is to control the actions of the Executive. We cannot be expected to do that with the level of services and facilities at our disposal.
A Member of Parliament's salary is adequate. My salary as a ministerial adviser was also adequate, but my resources were far superior then to my resources as a Member of Parliament. Far more resources should be made available. The £13,000 suggested for allowances is inadequate. The figure should be £25,000 or £26,000.
I shall vote against all amendments in favour of increasing members' salaries but will support all those that increase research and seretarial allowances.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: At this late hour we have all areed to make short contributions to the debate. I agree with two aspects of the proposals. When viewing all the proposals on the Order Paper, I cannot help but agree with John Morley, the biographer of Gladstone, who in 1887 said that the art of politics seemed constantly to be choosing between two blunders. Tonight there appear to be about four or five blunders on the same Order Paper.
The first blunder was in trying to discuss salaries and legitimate expenses together. There is confusion that somehow expenses are a fiddle. That is offensive to hon. Members. They have to do a great deal of work. They make sacrifices to do that work, although I accept that we choose to be here.
I hope that the Government will think seriously about the suggestion that any Member who lives in London, far away from his constituency, should be penalised—like stretching a piece of elastic until it breaks — by providing that the further away he lives the less he should receive for his legitimate travel.
I agree with those who have said that an hon. Member's life is esoteric and uncertain. In view of the length of time that some are in this House—the former hon. Member for Darlington Mr. O'Brien, was here for only two months; he thought that he was here for a long time, but the electors told him otherwise — we should support amendment (a) to motion No. 7. That is the only one I shall vote for tonight, for we should bear in mind how difficult it can be for an hon. Member to take up a new occupation.
We all make sacrifices in our different ways. I admit that I am in a more fortunate position than many hon.

Members, yet I have made personal sacrifices, and all sacrifice is relative. We are here to lead and should not do things for ourselves that we cannot do for those whom we represent. The next two years will be the most crucial. It is not just a question of asking when it is the right time to increase hon. Members' pay. I can speak with experience of industry, and the costs there are crucial. Much of it is labour costs, the rest being made up largely of Government and local government costs and taxes, and much of that is based on the salary scales incurred in Government service.
The only way we shall get unemployment down is for Britain to become competitive, and we can help to stop the flood of people getting large wage increases. It is no good talking constantly about comparability. We had it once. Indeed, the only real blunder I thought that the Conservative Government of 1979 made was in accepting Clegg comparability, which added nearly £5 ½ billion to the costs of industry and commerce and helped to wipe out many productive jobs. If I did not believe in Clegg comparability, I cannot believe in Members of Parliament trying to backslide out of making decisions.
We must be willing to discuss these issues, even at this late hour. People have a right to know where we stand and what we give ourselves. I am not saying that some of the things we want and some of the increases are not justified. We should have to justify them, and for that reason I am glad to see the House so well attended at 2 o'clock in the morning.
I repeat, we must not do for ourselves what we cannot do for other people. We must not have a stake in inflation. Parliament is meant to control the Government of the day, and as the Government can do something about inflation we should not have a permanent stake in inflation. It is our task to get rid of inflation, not to help it on its way. We should discuss our pay every year. and the idea of one Parliament fixing pay for the whole period is nonsense. Why not give a lead to the country once a year, whether we increase our salary, keep it where it is or reduce it? Why should we be afraid to explain to the public what we are sent here to do, which is to lead? For that reason I intend to vote for amendment (a) to motion No. 7, for I feel that it is right to help those who have lost their seats.
I hope that the Government will not pursue the idea of penalising Members who incur a great mileage and can justify doing so. I hope that we shall adopt the motion of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I think that 4 per cent. can be justified. If we accept my right hon. Friend's motion, we can return to our constituencies and argue with them that we must all be moderate, especially now, if we are to help to solve unemployment. Labour Members talk about nothing else but unemployment, and I urge them to do something practical to help to reduce it. Let us vote for a small increase for ourselves and jobs for our constituents.

Mr. W. Benyon: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Speaker: This is a major matter for the House and I am not prepared at this moment to accept a closure motion.

Mr. William Ross: A number of hon. Members have mentioned travel allowances and the reimbursement of travel expenses within constituencies


and from constituencies to London. I was rather surprised when the Leader of the House referred to two differing levels of mileage allowance for travel within a constituency. In my case, car mileage from home to airport has to be shown separately from constituency mileage on the application form for reimbursement. Many of us will be grateful if the Leader of vie House will tell us when he replies whether the 9,000 miles is mileage travelled on constituency work, part of the mileage for constituency work, or the total mileage covered on constituency work and travel to and from airports or seaports. The distinctions could make a considerable difference to the sums that are claimable over 12 months.
Only 23 Members are concerned with costs of sea journeys that are necessarily incurred in the course of representing offshore islands of the United Kingdom. The 23 Members comprise 17 Members from Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) and a number of Members from Scotland, including the leader of the Scottish National party, the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart). Every party in the House is represented in the group save the Labour party.
The problem may be dealt with by part of the provision that is made in the motion entitled "Office, Secretarial and Research Etc. Allowances," where it is stated that
provision should be made for … the extension of the facilities now available to Members for free travel by rail, sea, air or public road transport".
The cost of sea travel when Members have of necessity to take their cars with them is fairly high. The Larne-Stranraer charge for a car and driver, if the car is 14 ft 9 in long—many of us own cars that are rather longer than that—is £54. The sea mileage is 35, and by virtue of a change made by the Leader of the Opposition when he was Leader of the House, the Member who takes his car on the Larne-Stranraer route can claim 35 x 25p. That is a small sum compared with the total cost of the journey. The Belfast to Liverpool mileage is 137 and the fare for a car and driver is £43. Southampton to the Isle of Wight is 12 miles, with a fare of £12·65, Ullapool to Stornoway is 50 miles, with a fare of £31·15 and Aberdeen to Shetland is 184 miles, with a fare of £118·50.
It will be apparent to the House that hon. Members representing such constituencies are out a considerable sum when they have to take their motor vehicle on journeys to the islands, and I suspect that the position is even worse for hon. Members who have several islands in their constituency and have to take their vehicle from one to another. Something needs to be done about the problem. The number of hon. Members affected is small — I estimate it at 23, although I may have missed one or two.
Will the Leader of the House tell us what he intends to do to remove the inequity between hon. Members? The burden should be borne not by individual Members but by public funds. The issue has caused concern for many years and as my party has the largest number of hon. Members who are affected by it and since we rarely bring our cars to London — no one willingly drives a car from Londonderry to London and we do so only when it is necessary —I thought it reasonable that I should raise the matter and ask the Leader of the House to take the necessary steps to remove the inequity.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I do not wish to stand against any suggestions that have come from the

Chair, but I detect that the House wishes to proceed to a vote. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Therefore, I shall be brief. I hope that the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) will not be offended if I do not take up his remarks, but it was difficult for those of us on the Government side to hear what he was saying. However, there are hon. Members on both sides of the House who hope that he will support the recommendations of the review body or the amendments proposed to the Leader of the House's motion.
There is a feeling of distaste and resentment, which I share, about the fact that we have had to have this debate. I do not wish to conceal increases in parliamentary salaries and expenses from the public, but a mess has built up over the years and we are at the culmination of a 12-year struggle to get rid of the embarrassing and distasteful analysis of our underpaid status.
We were given solemn pledges that outside recommendations would be accepted. The Leader of the House also made such a pledge emphatically last year. I hoped that that would be done, and that the public would see that the modern British Parliament was receiving a modern level of salaries, commensurate with the intensity of work which is a feature of life for most hon. Members, and he was giving a good service to the public and doing a proper job for proper payment.
The resentment and distaste increases when we consider some of the comments made by the press. I and, I am sure, other hon. Members took offence at Sir John Junor's comments on 3 July when he concluded his tirade about Members already being overpaid and heading for the trough yet again by saying:
I will publish the name and constituency of every single Tory MP who tries to grab more than is being offered and from that time onwards do my best to ensure that not one of them is every re-elected.
I do not suggest that there should be an elaborate discussion of comparability with members of the press —that would be irrelevant—but in a conversation with Sir John Junor this morning, he did not object when I said that I might mention his salary and expenses, because it would be interesting to know how well paid he is. I am willing to be corrected by Sir John, who did not confirm or deny the figures that I shall quote, because he did not want to discuss them. However, he said that he had no objection to my mentioning them, and I have been informed on I hope good authority that his salary is £63,000 a year, that he has an expense allowance of up to £24,000 a year and that he has assistance from his company with property in the country and in London Of course, that is a private company, so the position is different from that of a public institution. Nonetheless, we are entitled at least to be a little resentful that Sir John can comment that Members of Parliament are already overpaid.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said, few hon. Members have referred to the report and the annexes, which have about 800 pages. It is a detailed and elaborate study. It was solemnly pledged in the House that whatever the Plowden committee suggested would be accepted. I remind the hon. Member — perhaps a new Member — who said earlier that the salary was high enough and that it should not be increased now, that the figure recommended by the review


body was ironically that for the fourth year of the previous Parliament, and was recommended and published before the general election. Paragraph 4 states:
Quite apart from the fact that we cannot anticipate when the next general election might be held, it would be both inappropriate and impractical for us to project our judgments too far ahead. We have decided that we should recommend the levels of salary and allowances that we consider appropriate at 13 June 1983"—
that was written before the general election—
which is the due date for any increases in the fourth year of the present Parliament. The acceptance of our recommendations and the timing of their implementation are matters for the Government and the House itself; but if implementation is postponed substantially beyond June 1983 some of our recommendations may need to be updated.
Perhaps I may remind those who sweep the report aside and deny the logic of the work of Lord Plowden and his colleagues, who must incidentally be fed up with the way in which such exercises are treated by the House, of paragraph 22, which states:
We have concluded that a significant increase in salary is now necessary. In part the increase is a reflection of the fact that MPs' pay has not been kept up to date in recent years… We consider that a salary of £19,000 is appropriate for Members of Parliament … and we recommend accordingly.
Why cannot the House bring itself once and for all to get rid of this absurd nonsense which brings us into even greater disrepute in the public eye? I have received no letters of protest when, without trying to avoid the subject, I have publicly recommended in recent years that Members' salaries should be increased. I usually receive letters of support. Tonight is the House's opportunity to exorcise this absurd problem, and to have that salary recommended and fixed, even if only for one Parliament. There are many amendments on which to vote. I have added my signature to one amendment, which is one way out. If we continue to make fools — I use the word deliberately of ourselves, and if any Government continue to interfere — with a House of Commons matter—the remuneration of Members — we shall make ourselves look even more foolish as time goes on, as well as creating the miserable position that Members are relatively, and in absolute terms, less well paid as time goes on, and that they face inexorable increases in their allowances, which they are bound to treat as quasi-incomes although they may not wish to. That is a different point from the one made earlier about allowances being too close to salary. That is the inevitable consequence of 12 years of nonsense and stupidity. Tonight is the night to end that nonsense.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the House wishes the debate to come to a conclusion.
Before I call the Front Bench speakers, I should say to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that I have now further considered the point of order he raised earlier. I regret that I cannot accept a manuscript amendment at this late stage. All Members had equal opportunities to table amendments, and it is well known that we take amendments in the order that they fall in the main motion. If I were in effect to alter the order of our proceedings by selecting a manuscript amendment, it would favour one point of view but disadvantage another, and I cannot properly take that course.
So that there should be no misunderstanding, may I say that the position is this. The first amendment to be put will be amendment (i) to amendment (b). I shall then put

amendment (b) in the name of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) as amended or not, as the case may be. If amendment (b) is not carried, the way is open to divide on amendment (ee) in the names of the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) and others.

Mr. John Silkin: The House has heard all the arguments and will not require any more from me. What it will require from me, however, is a statement of how I personally intend to vote and what advice I shall give to my hon. Friends if they care to take it.
I shall vote in favour of the amendment on resettlement grant for hon. Members who lost their seats, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). I support the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) on expenditure on word processors. The Leader of the House must look again at mileage. It is not a voting matter, but he promised to do that. I support in its entirety, as I thought the Leader of the House would, the Plowden report.

Mr. Biffen: I fear that I cannot match in brevity the admirable speech of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin). [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because it would be regarded as an inappropriate response by the Leader of the House, although the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman spoke was admirably suited to someone in his position.
This has been a debate of remarkably high quality on a subject that is intimate and at times embarrassing for the House, yet I believe that the House has acquitted itself by the standards that it would wish to set. One of the responsibilities that falls upon me is to reply to the debate, but I cannot reply to all the speeches because there have been so many. Instead I shall refer to themes.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) raised points which I shall certainly consider. I shall be in touch to see how best I can assist. That is true also of those who asked detailed questions about the operation of the Fees Office should the motion on secretarial and research allowances be confirmed.
I shall talk of themes, but there is one speech to which I must refer and I do so gladly. It is that of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. Chope). To choose 11.40 pm to make one's maiden speech on this topic is a heroic undertaking, as the House is not then normally waiting for such an experience. However, the House enjoyed his speech. It was robust and had the factor of supporting the position that I set out. My hon. Friend acquitted himself admirably. I am certain that he has a highly successful House of Commons career ahead of him.
I refer to motor mileage. Only someone possessed of the most rhinoceros hide would be unaware that my earlier remarks caused something of a reaction. I wish to dispel speedily the anxiety and unease that there may be about that. I shall at once, of course, arrange for an independent inquiry into the—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House wishes to hear about this independent inquiry.

Mr. Biffen: I was rather hoping to be allowed to reach the end of my remarks on this item, because I was requested to have the matter examined.

Sir Paul Bryan: rose—

Mr. Biffen: I ask hon. Members to allow me the courtesy of finishing this passage. There will be an investigation into the proposed Civil Service two-tier arrangements to see how appropriate trey are to Members of Parliament. I shall ensure that that investigation is concluded speedily, that the findings of the inquiry are made available to Parliament and that the present motor mileage arrangements will stand until the House has authorised any replacement.

Sir Paul Bryan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that an independent inquiry — the Plowden committee — has already rejected that?

Mr. Biffen: That is not so. The House will have the chance to authorise whatever arrangements are proposed, whether they be the existing proposals or new arrangements.
It will be helpful to the House if it explain how the Government intend to proceed if the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) find support. As I explained earlier, the Government accept the proposals contained in the amendments to motion No. 2, the first motion on Members' pay. My intention would therefore be not to move the effective motion in my name on pay, which stands second on the Order Paper, but to return to the House as soon as possible with a revised effective motion which would reflect the terms and spirit of the amending expression of opinion.
In those circumstances, the Government would also wish to reconsider Ministers' pay. I should therefore not intend to move motion No. 10 inviting the House to approve the draft order published last week. Again, I should hope to return to the House with a revised order in the near future.

Mr. Straw: Does the Leader of the House give an undertaking to act in a similar way to reflect the opinions of the House if amendment (ee) is carried?

Mr. Biffen: The Government will wish to return to the House to table resolutions which will take account of such a vote. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give effect to."] The Government's position is clear. They will wish to take that vote into account, and the House will have a chance to react to the Government's suggestions.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: rose — [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the House has given way.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Will the Leader of the House confirm that in 1975 the House expressed an opinion that parliamentary pay should be linked to the assistant secretary grade of the Civil Service? That opinion has never been implemented.

Mr. Biffen: It is precisely because there are those precedents that I am unwilling to give the categoric undertaking that was sought. If full Plowden—if I may use that term — is voted for this evening, it will be implemented.
I should like to make one further detailed point about the amendment tabled by my right Ion. Friend the Member for Taunton to the first motion on Member's pay. The effective date proposed in his amendment for the

introduction of the new level of pay is 22 June, whereas the practice in recent years has been to introduce new levels of pay with effect from 13 June. Apart from being helpful to the Fees Office, it will be of considerable benefit because it will be simpler to start on 13 June. It will be my intention to reflect this by bringing forward a revised and effective motion on Member's pay.
I address myself now to the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward), the effect of which would be to create a single office. research and secretarial allowance, in place of the two separate allowances recommended by the review body. I have received a number of representations, from both sides of the House, that Members should be free to allocate funds from the allowance according to their individual requirements. I can see the force of the argument, although I realise that it runs contrary to what the secretaries' council wishes. The Government are prepared to accept the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend.
I note that the amendments have been framed to take account of those tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton, which effectively reduce the office, secretarial and research allowance from £14,000 to £12,000 in future financial years. A number of hon. Members have regretted this cut in the proposals, but the figure can be reviewed annually and is an increase of 36 per cent. It is not unreasonable that the Government should feel, on reflection, that is a tolerable interpretation of Plowden.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Is it not rather squalid to suggest to the House that the increase, which the right hon. Gentleman is saying we should accept and which is based on the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), should concern people who are not here to argue their case on their own behalf—secretaries and researchers—and who are losing money?

Mr. Biffen: I do not accept it in those terms. For one thing, it is a reflection of a judgment which the House is invited to make as to how much secretarial and research assistance is needed for Members. These are matters for individual judgment. There is no salary trade-off in the way that the hon. Member is suggesting.
I have already told the House that the Government accept the amendment to my motion dealing with Members' pensions, motion 9. The Government believe that it would be right also to increase the level of Ministers' pension contributions to the level now proposed for Members. The necessary changes in the existing legislation will be made when the Bill to give effect to the other changes in the Members' pensions schemes is introduced.

Mr. Eric Deakins: If the amendment on staged payments is accepted by the House, will the Leader of the House give the undertaking which his right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. JohnStevas) gave in July 1979, when we last had staged payments, and make the salaries for pension purposes £18,500 from this year?

Mr. Biffen: It would be my intention to relate pension payments to the salary paid.

Mr. Deakins: I apologise for not making myself clear. If we have staged payments, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to do what his right hon. Friend did in July 1979


on a similar occasion, when we had staged payments over three years, instead of five, and ensure that the recommended salary for pension purposes is the maximum, the £18,500 notional salary, which would apply from the first staged payment and not from the last?

Mr. Biffen: I cannot give that undertaking.
Severance payments were dealt with by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who argued that the Government's proposals for resettlement grants should be doubled. I listened to his speech, and he made a powerful plea concerning the difficulty of defeated Members. However, the resettlement grant is considerably larger in scope than anything that the House has authorised hitherto. In those circumstances we are justified in accepting the Plowden committee's recommendation and certainly not in doubling it.
The theme that has run through tonight's debate has been whether one should go for the full Plowden proposals and, in a sense, whether we are required to do so because of our obligation to the Plowden committee having established the Top Salaries Review Body and having given undertakings in respect of the Plowden conunittee in a somewhat earlier incarnation than in the latter days. But Lord Plowden himself highlighted the difficulty that would always attend the Government on receipt of the committee's report. I quote—not for the first time this evening—paragraph 224.
It is for Government and Parliament to decide whether to accept our proposals and, to the extent that they are accepted, when they should be implemented. We are conscious that the levels of salaries and allowances we have recommended involve significant increases. Many will no doubt find it difficult to accept that they are justified against the background of present economic circumstances, in which restraint in wages and salary increases is being urged upon the community as a whole.
It is against that background that one must make a political judgment. It is the Government's political judgment that the full implementation of Plowden's recommendations would not be helpful or consistent with the general thrust of their economic policy.

Mr. Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend read paragraph 225?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend read out paragraph 225 and, anyway, it is three times as long as paragraph 224. It is perfectly true that every time there is a non-fulfilment the expectation is created of somehow or other catching up at some later stage. Of course that is a difficulty. Anyone who supposes that the conclusions being arrived at this evening are simple, easy and relatively comfortable is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. These are most delicate and difficult decisions to make. Of course one is conscious that there are disagreeable aspects in the proposals that we have put to the House. None the less, the debate has turned to a substantial degree on the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton. Running parallel with them were the amendments that have been moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Sir H. Fraser).
It would be well to reflect upon the measured and modest but none the less tangible advantages of the proposals made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton—an increase of 5·5 per cent. for the year in prospect, a settled pattern of a 4·5 per cent. increase per annum thereafter with linkage at the rate of £18,500 on

terms that have been keenly debated in the Chamber tonight. But, what has not been much commented upon is the provision for a parliamentary presence in the first three months of every Parliament, a resolution of the House being required to continue the linkage arrangements, including, of course, the ability to alter one way or the other whatever provisions have been made. Therefore, if the linkage arrangements prove to be so inequitable and intolerable there is a built-in mechanism whereby that can be considered in the first three months of this Parliament.

Mr. Michael Mates: Will not that built-in ability simply recreate the disagreeable situation that we are in tonight at the beginning of every Parliament? Surely one of the Government's greatest difficulties is that we are back fresh from a general election, debating this in front of the world which thinks that, having got ourselves elected at the start of a Parliament, we are trying to line our pockets for the next three or four years.
Certainly the Government and my right hon. Friend have moved a little in response to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) has painfully worked out. But could not my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House now acknowledge that the linkage that is proposed in the motion is already ludicrously inadequate and that he will have to address himself to the problem, not, I pray, at the beginning of the next Parliament but well before the end of this one? That would help many hon. Members.

Mr. Biffen: I counsel the House not to proceed to a system whereby there is linkage but thereafter no parliamentary presence whatsoever. There must be some accountability of the House in these matters, but many hon. Members consider the accountability to be oppressive. As that is the mood of the House, the motions are before it. Nevertheless, we cannot escape from the problems of seemingly oppressive accountability to practically no accountability at all. I therefore applaud any attempt to marry together some concept of linkage and retention of a parliamentary presence.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Biffen: No, I am answering my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates). My hon. Friend believes that developments in the economy in the next three years will be such as to render the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton insupportable. I assure the House that if on 1 January 1988 the linkage proposed by my right hon. Friend is patently inequitable, the Government will bring the matter before the House again. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why then?"] Because that is the proper time.

Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend answer two questions?
First, what would happen if the linkage was seen to be inequitable by 1 January 1986? Secondly, if my right hon. Friend were to bring the matter before the House by 1 January 1988, what would he consider to be the proper rate of remuneration for a Member of Parliament as against a Civil Service grade today? If the House is to take my right hon. Friend at his word, what is his word, what does it mean and where would he put us?

Mr. Biffen: It is important that the House should have the chance to reconsider any linkage before the date at


which it becomes operative. I cannot answer my hon. Friend's second point. Ultimately, that must be a matter for the House to resolve.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: What the right hon. Gentleman has said has compounded his meanness in rejecting the point raised by ny hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) in respect of pensions. If he cannot reiterate the assurances and concessions of his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), he is being doubly mean if what he says applies to pension arrangements as they now stand.

Mr. Biffen: I do not take that point. The reconsideration of the linkage is a genuine attempt to meet the anxieties if the present arrangements prove unequitable.

Mr. Fairbairn: rose—

Mr. Biffen: I must continue.
The amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton will arrange for linkage to operate on 30 June 1983 for calculation purposes, although the linkage itself will operate from the date in the amendment. I feel that this could prejudice the working of linkage in that there would be the likelihood of a substantial salary lift if this formula were operated. I do not believe that a salary hike of perhaps 20 per cent. is the kind of circumstances in which one would wish to undertake linkage. [Interruption.] Well I have to take my support where I can find it.

Amendment (b) proposed to motion No. 2, in
line 1, leave out from first 'House' to end and add:—

'(a) the salaries payable to Members of this House should be—

(i) £18,500 for Members not falling within sub-paragraph (ii); and
5 (ii) £13,875 for Officers of this House and Members receiving a salary under 5 the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 or a pension under section 26 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972;

(b) the implementation of this recommendation should be by means of five equal increments, to be effective from 22nd June 1983, 1st January 1984, 1st January 1985, 1st January 1986 and 1st January 1987 respectively; and
10 15 (c) the salary of a Member should from 1st January 1988 be linked to that paid to a civil servant at a point in the grade of national salaries which is receiving £18,500 on 1st January 1987 and the parliamentary salary of Members within paragraph (a)(ii) above should be seventy-five per cent. of that figure: provided that this paragraph would not have effect unless approved by a Resolution of the House during the first three months of each Parliament.'.—[Mr. du Cann.]

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No point of order arises. I am proposing the Question. I now call the right hon. Member for Stafford (Sir H. Fraser) to move his amendment to the proposed amendment.
Amendment (i) proposed to the proposed amendment, in line 12, leave out 1st January 1987' and insert '13th June 1983'—[Sir Hugh Fraser.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 226, Noes 218.

Division No. 27]
[2.47 am


AYES


Amess, David
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Barnett, Guy


Arnold, Tom
Beith, A. J.


Ashdown, Paddy
Bell, Stuart


Ashton, Joe
Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Bidwell, Sydney


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Blackburn, John


Baldry, Anthony
Blaker, Rt Hon Peter

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Perhaps I may interrupt my right hon. Friend in a more parliamentary way. Due to the arrival of that extraordinary object, I was unable to hear the important things that my right hon. Friend was saying. May I ask him to repeat them?

Mr. Biffen: My speech has been redolent with important things, although perhaps not all so widely appreciated as they might be. At any rate, I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford would have liked to hear my assurance that if on 1 January 1988 the linkage point proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton was patently inequitable the Government would bring the matter before the House again.
My other reason for inviting the House to reject the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford is this. Although in certain circumstances we would be prepared to consider the factors relating to the linkage point, in the first three months of the next Parliament the House itself will have the chance to reconsider the working of linkage. If we are to make a success of the linkage proposal, I believe that the link proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton offers the most prudent and acceptable course for the House. I recommend those proposals and with them the motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall now call the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) to move his amendment (b).

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question Put, That amendment (b), as amended, be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 231, Noes 226.

Division No. 27]
[2.47 am


AYES


Amess, David
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Barnett, Guy


Arnold, Tom
Beith, A. J.


Ashdown, Paddy
Bell, Stuart


Ashton, Joe
Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Bidwell, Sydney


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Blackburn, John


Baldry, Anthony
Blaker, Rt Hon Peter




Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Coombs, Simon


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Corbett, Robin


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Couchman, James


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Cowans, Harry


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Craigen, J. M.


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Critchley, Julian


Bruinvels, Peter
Crowther, Stan


Buchan, Norman
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Buck, Sir Antony
Cunningham, Dr John


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Dalyell, Tam


Campbell, Ian
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Cartwright, John
Deakins, Eric


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Dewar, Donald


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Dobson, Frank


Clarke, Thomas
Dormand, Jack


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Coleman, Donald
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Dykes, Hugh


Conlan, Bernard
Eadie, Alex


Conway, Derek
Eastham, Ken


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Evans, loan (Cynon Valley)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Evans, John (St. Helens N)






Ewing, Harry
McTaggart, Robert


Fairbairn, Nicholas
McWilliam, John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Maples, John


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Marlow, Antony


Fookes, Miss Janet
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Forrester, John
Martin, Michael


Foster, Derek
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Foulkes, George
Maxton, John


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Meacher, Michael


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Meadowcroft, Michael


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mikardo, Ian


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Garrett, W. E.
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


George, Bruce
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Miscampbell, Norman


Golding, John
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Moate, Roger


Gorst, John
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Gould, Bryan
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Greenway, Harry
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Grist, Ian
O'Brien, William


Grylls, Michael
O'Neill, Martin


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Page, John (Harrow W)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Parry Robert


Hardy, Peter
Patchett, Terry


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Pavitt, Laurie


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Pendry, Tom


Haselhurst, Alan
Penhaligon, David


Haynes, Frank
Pike, Peter


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Hicks, Robert
Randall, Stuart


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Rathbone, Tim


Hind, Kenneth
Redmond, M.


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Home Robertson, John
Robertson, George


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Rogers, Allan


Hoyle, Douglas
Rooker, J. W.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Sheerman, Barry


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Janner, Hon Greville
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


John, Brynmor
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Johnston, Russell
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Silvester, Fred


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sims, Roger


Kennedy, Charles
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Snape, Peter


Kinnock, Neil
Steen, Anthony


Kirkwood, Archibald
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Knowles, Michael
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Knox, David
Stott, Roger


Lambie, David
Strang, Gavin


Lamond, James
Straw, Jack


Lawler, Geoffrey
Sumberg, David


Lawrence, Ivan
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lead bitter, Ted
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Tinn, James


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Lightbown, David
Trotter, Neville


Litherland, Robert
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Wainwright, R.


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Ward, John


McCartney, Hugh
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McCrindle, Robert
Wareing, Robert


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Wiggin, Jerry


McGuire, Michael
Wigley, Dafydd


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


McKelvey, William
Wilson, Gordon


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Winnick, David


Maclennan, Robert
Winterton, Mrs Ann


McNamara, Kevin
Winterton, Nicholas





Woodall, Alec
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wrigglesworth, Ian
Sir Hugh Fraser and



Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas.


NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Ancram, Michael
Hayhoe, Barney


Atkins Robert (South Ribble)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Hickmet, Richard


Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)
Hirst, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Holt, Richard


Barron, Kevin
Howard, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Bellingham, Henry
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Benyon, William
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Bottomley, Peter
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Boyes, Roland
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Braine, Sir Bernard
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Key, Robert


Brooke, Hon Peter
Kilfedder, James A.


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Budgen, Nick
Lamont, Norman


Burt, Alistair
Lang, Ian


Butcher, John
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Butler, Hon Adam
Lee, John (Pendle)


Caborn, Richard
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Carttiss, Michael
Lilley, Peter


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Lord, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Luce, Richard


Churchill, W. S.
Lyell, Nicholas


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
McCrea, Rev William


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Macfarlane, Neil


Clay, Robert
MacGregor, John


Cohen, Harry
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Colvin, Michael
Madden, Max


Cope, John
Maginnis, Ken


Corbyn, Jeremy
Major, John


Corrie, John
Malins, Humfrey


Dixon, Donald
Malone, Gerald


Dorrell, Stephen
Marek, Dr John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Marland, Paul


Dunn, Robert
Maude, Francis


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Eggar, Tim
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Emery, Sir Peter
Mellor, David


Evennett, David
Merchant, Piers


Eyre, Reginald
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fallon, Michael
Michie, William


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Fisher, Mark
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Fletcher, Alexander
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Molyneaux, James


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Monro, Sir Hector


Fox, Marcus
Montgomery, Fergus


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Moore, John


Freeman, Roger
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Gale, Roger
Moynihan, Hon C.


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Needham, Richard


Glyn, Dr Alan
Nellist, David


Goodlad, Alastair
Nelson, Anthony


Gow, Ian
Neubert, Michael


Gregory, Conal
Newton, Tony


Ground, Patrick
Nicholls, Patrick


Gummer, John Selwyn
Nicholson, J.


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Norris, Steven


Hampson, Dr Keith
Onslow, Cranley


Hanley, Jeremy
Osborn, Sir John


Harris, David
Ottaway, Richard


Harvey, Robert
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil






Parris, Matthew
Spencer, D.


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Patten, John (Oxford)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Pattie, Geoffrey
Squire, Robin


Pawsey, James
Stanley, John


Pollock, Alexander
Stern, Michael


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Powley, John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Prior, Rt Hon James
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Raffan, Keith
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Stokes, John


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Stradling, Thomas, J.


Renton, Tim
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Rhodes James, Robert
Tebbit, Fit Hon Norman


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Rifkind, Malcolm
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Thorntor, Malcolm


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Tracey, Richard


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Trippier, David


Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Waddington, David


Rossi, Hugh
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Waldegrave, Hon William


Ryder, Richard
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Waller, Gary


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Watson, John


Scott, Nicholas
Watts, John


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Whitney, Raymond


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wood, Timothy


Shersby, Michael
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Skinner, Dennis
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)



Soames, Hon Nicholas
Tellers for the Noes:


Soley, Clive
Mr. Keith Best and


Spearing, Nigel
Mr. Beaumont-Dark.

Division No. 28]
[3 am


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Burt, Alistair


Amess, David
Butcher, John


Ancram, Michael
Butler, Hon Adam


Arnold, Tom
Butterfill, John


Ashby, David
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Ashton, Joe
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Atkins Robert (South Ribble)
Carttiss, Michael


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Cartwright, John


Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Baldry, Anthony
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Batiste, Spencer
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bellingham, Henry
Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Clegg, Sir Walter


Benyon, William
Colvin, Michael


Berry, Hon Anthony
Conway, Derek


Best, Keith
Cope, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Corrie, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Couchman, James


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Crouch, David


Blackburn, John
Dorrell, Stephen


Blaker, Rt Hon Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Boscawen, Hon Robert
du Cann, Fit Hon Edward


Bottomley, Peter
Dunn, Robert


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Edwards, Fit Hon N. (P'broke)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Eggar, Tim


Braine, Sir Bernard
Emery, Sir Peter


Bright, Graham
Eyre, Reginald


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Fallon, Michael


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bruinvels, Peter
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Fletcher, Alexander


Buck, Sir Antony
Fookes, Miss Janet





Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Monro, Sir Hector


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Montgomery, Fergus


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Moore, John


Freeman, Roger
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Galley, Roy
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Moynihan, Hon C.


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Needham, Richard


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Nelson, Anthony


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Neubert, Michael


Goodlad, Alastair
Newton, Tony


Gow, Ian
Nicholls, Patrick


Grant, Sir Anthony
Osborn, Sir John


Green way, Harry
Ottaway, Richard


Gregory, Conal
Page, John (Harrow W)


Grist, Ian
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Grylls, Michael
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Gummer, John Selwyn
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hampson, Dr Keith
Pawsey, James


Hanley, Jeremy
Pollock, Alexander


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Powley, John


Harvey, Robert
Prior, Rt Hon James


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Raffan, Keith


Hayhoe, Barney
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Renton, Tim


Hickmet, Richard
Rhodes James, Robert


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hind, Kenneth
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hirst, Michael
Rifkind, Malcolm


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Holt, Richard
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Howard, Michael
Rossi, Hugh


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Ryder, Richard


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Scott, Nicholas


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Shersby, Michael


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Silvester, Fred


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sims, Roger


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


King, Rt Hon Tom
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lamont, Norman
Squire, Robin


Lang, Ian
Stanley, John


Lawler, Geoffrey
Stern, Michael


Lawrence, Ivan
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Stokes, John


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Stradling Thomas, J


Luce, Richard
Sumberg, David


Lyell, Nicholas
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


McCrindle, Robert
Temple-Morris, Peter


Macfarlane, Neil
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


MacGregor, John
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Thornton, Malcolm


Major, John
Tinn, James


Malins, Humfrey
Trippier, David


Malone, Gerald
Trotter, Neville


Marland, Paul
Twinn, Dr Ian


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Viggers, Peter


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Waddington, David


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Mellor, David
Waldegrave, Hon William


Merchant, Piers
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Waller, Gary


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Ward, John


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Wheeler, John


Miscampbell, Norman
Whitney, Raymond


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Wood, Timothy


Moate, Roger
Young, Sir George (Acton)






Younger, Rt Hon George
Sir Paul Bryan and



Mr. Marcus Fox.


Tellers for the Ayes:



NOES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Glyn, Dr Alan


Ashdown, Paddy
Golding, John


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Gorst, John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Gould, Bryan


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Barnett, Guy
Ground, Patrick


Barron, Kevin
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Beith, A. J.
Hardy, Peter


Bell, Stuart
Harris, David


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Haselhurst, Alan


Bermingham, Gerald
Haynes, Frank


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Boyes, Roland
Hicks, Robert


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Home Robertson, John


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Hoyle, Douglas


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Budgen, Nick
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Janner, Hon Greville


Campbell, Ian
John, Brynmor


Chope, Christopher
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Churchill, W. S.
Johnston, Russell


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Clarke, Thomas
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Clay, Robert
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Kennedy, Charles


Cohen, Harry
Key, Robert


Coleman, Donald
Kilfedder, James A.


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Conlan, Bernard
Kinnock, Neil


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Kirkwood, Archibald


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Knowles, Michael


Coombs, Simon
Knox, David


Corbett, Robin
Lambie, David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lamond, James


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Leadbitter, Ted


Craigen, J. M.
Lester, Jim


Critchley, Julian
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Crowther, Stan
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Cunningham, Dr John
Lilley, Peter


Dalyell, Tam
Litherland, Robert


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Deakins, Eric
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dewar, Donald
Lord, Michael


Dixon, Donald
McCrea, Rev William


Dobson, Frank
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Dormand, Jack
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Duffy, A. E. P.
McGuire, Michael


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Dykes, Hugh
McKelvey, William


Eadie, Alex
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Eastham, Ken
Maclennan, Robert


Evans, loan (Cynon Valley)
McNamara, Kevin


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
McTaggart, Robert


Evennett, David
McWilliam, John


Ewing, Harry
Madden, Max


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Maginnis, Ken


Fatchett, Derek
Malins, Humfrey


Fisher, Mark
Maples, John


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Marek, Dr John


Forrester, John
Marlow, Antony


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Foster, Derek
Martin, Michael


Foulkes, George
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Maude, Francis


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Maxton, John


Gale, Roger
Meacher, Michael


Garrett, W. E.
Meadowcroft, Michael


George, Bruce
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Michie, William





Mikardo, Ian
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Miller, Dr M.S. (E Kilbride)
Skinner, Dennis


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Molyneaux, James
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Snape, Peter


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Soley, Clive


Nellist, David
Spearing, Nigel


Nicholson, J.
Spencer, D.


Norris, Steven
Steen, Anthony


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


O'Brien, William
Stott, Roger


O'Neill, Martin
Strang, Gavin


Onslow, Cranley
Straw, Jack


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Parry Robert
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Patchett, Terry
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Pavitt, Laurie
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Pendry, Tom
Tracey, Richard


Penhaligon, David
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Pike, Peter
Wainwright, R.


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wareing, Robert


Randall, Stuart
Warren, Kenneth


Rathbone, Tim
Watts, John


Redmond, M.
Wiggin, Jerry


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Wigley, Dafydd


Robertson, George
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Rogers, Allan
Wilson, Gordon


Rooker, J. W.
Winnick, David


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Winterton, Nicholas


Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Woodall, Alec


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Sheerman, Barry
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.



Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tellers for the Noes:


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. Walter Harrison and


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Mr. Hugh McCartney.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, Put:—

The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes 216.

Division No. 29]
[3.13 am


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Amess, David
Buck, Sir Antony


Ancram, Michael
Burt, Alistair


Arnold, Tom
Butcher, John


Ashby, David
Butler, Hon Adam


Atkins Robert (South Ribble)
Butterfill, John


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)
Carttiss, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Cartwright, John


Baldry, Anthony
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Batiste, Spencer
Chope, Christopher


Bellingham, Henry
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Benyon, William
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Best, Keith
Clegg, Sir Walter


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Colvin, Michael


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Conway, Derek


Blackburn, John
Coombs, Simon


Blaker, Rt Hon Peter
Cope, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Corrie, John


Bottomley, Peter
Couchman, James


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Crouch, David


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Dorrell, Stephen


Braine, Sir Bernard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bright, Graham
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Dunn, Robert


Brooke, Hon Peter
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Eggar, Tim


Bruinvels, Peter
Emery, Sir Peter


Bryan, Sir Paul
Evennett, David






Eyre, Reginald
Mellor, David


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Merchant, Piers


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fletcher, Alexander
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Fox, Marcus
Miscampbell, Norman


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Moate, Roger


Freeman, Roger
Monro, Sir Hector


Galley, Roy
Montgomery, Fergus


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Moore, John


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Goodlad, Alastair
Moynihan, Hon C.


Gow, Ian
Needham, Richard


Grant, Sir Anthony
Nelson, Anthony


Greenway, Harry
Neubert Michael


Gregory, Conal
Newton, Tony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Nicholls, Patrick


Ground, Patrick
Norris, Steven


Grylls, Michael
Osborn, Sir John


Gummer, John Selwyn
Ottaway Richard


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Page, John (Harrow W)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hanley, Jeremy
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Patten, John (Oxford)


Harvey, Robert
Pattie, Geoffrey


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Pawsey, James


Hayhoe, Barney
Pollock, Alexander


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Powley, John


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Prior, Rt Hon James


Hickmet, Richard
Raffan, Keith


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hind, Kenneth
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Hirst, Michael
Renton, Tim


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Rhodes James, Robert


Holt, Richard
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Howard, Michael
Ridley, Fit Hon Nicholas


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Rossi, Hugh


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Ryder, Richard


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Sayeed, Jonathan


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Scott, Nicholas


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Silvester, Fred


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Sims, Roger


King, Rt Hon Tom
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lamont, Norman
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Lang, Ian
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Squire, Robin


Lawrence, Ivan
Stanley, John


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Stern, Michael


Lee, John (Pendle)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Lightbown, David
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Stokes, John


Luce, Richard
Stradling Thomas, J.


Lyell, Nicholas
Sumberg, David


McCrindle, Robert
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Temple-Morris, Peter


Macfarlane, Neil
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


MacGregor, John
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Malins, Humfrey
Thornton, Malcolm


Malone, Gerald
Trippier, David


Marland, Paul
Trotter, Neville


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Viggers, Peter


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Waddington, David





Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Whitney, Raymond


Waldegrave, Hon William
Wood, Timothy


Walker, Bill (T'side N)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Waller, Gary



Ward, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Mr. Tim Sainsbury and


Watson, John
Mr. John Major.


Wheeler, John



NOES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Ashdown, Paddy
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Ashton, Joe
Gale, Roger


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Garrett, W. E.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
George, Bruce


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Barnett, Guy
Glyn, Dr Alan


Barron, Kevin
Golding, John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gorst, John


Beith, A. J.
Gould, Bryan


Bell, Stuart
Grist, Ian


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hardy, Peter


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Harris, David


Boyes, Roland
Haynes, Frank


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Hicks, Robert


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Home Robertson, John


Buchan, Norman
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Budgen, Nick
Hoyle, Douglas


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Campbell, Ian
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Churchill, W. S.
Janner, Hon Greville


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
John, Brynmor


Clarke, Thomas
Johnston, Russell


Clay, Robert
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Cohen, Harry
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Coleman, Donald
Kennedy, Charles


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Key, Robert


Conlan, Bernard
Kilfedder, James A.


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Kinnock, Neil


Corbett, Robin
Kirkwood, Archibald


Corbyn, Jeremy
Knowles, Michael


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Knox, David


Craigen, J. M.
Lambie, David


Critchley, Julian
Lamond, James


Crowther, Stan
Leadbitter, Ted


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lester, Jim


Cunningham, Dr John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Dalyell, Tam
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Lilley, Peter


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Litherland, Robert


Deakins, Eric
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Dewar, Donald
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dixon, Donald
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dobson, Frank
Lord, Michael


Dormand, Jack
McCrea, Rev William


Duffy, A. E. P.
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
McGuire, Michael


Eadie, Alex
McKelvey, William


Eastham, Ken
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Evans, loan (Cynon Valley)
Maclennan, Robert


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
McNamara, Kevin


Ewing, Harry
McTaggart, Robert


Fairbairn, Nicholas
McWilliam, John


Fallon, Michael
Madden, Max


Fatchett, Derek
Maginnis, Ken


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Maples, John


Fisher, Mark
Marek, Dr John


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Marlow, Antony


Forrester, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Martin, Michael


Foster, Derek
Mason, Rt Hon Roy






Maude, Francis
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Maxton, John
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Meacher, Michael
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Meadowcroft, Michael
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Michie, William
Skinner, Dennis


Mikardo, Ian
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Snape, Peter


Molyneaux, James
Soley, Clive


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Spearing, Nigel


Nellist, David
Spencer, D.


Nicholson, J.
Steen, Anthony


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


O'Brien, William
Stott, Roger


O'Neill, Martin
Strang, Gavin


Onslow, Cranley
Straw, Jack


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Parris, Matthew
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Parry Robert
Tinn, James


Patchett, Terry
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Pavitt, Laurie
Tracey, Richard


Pendry, Tom
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Penhaligon, David
Wainwright, R.


Pike, Peter
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Wareing, Robert


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Warren, Kenneth


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wiggin, Jerry


Randall, Stuart
Wig ley, Dafydd


Rathbone, Tim
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Redmond, M.
Wilson, Gordon


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Winnick, David


Robertson, George
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Rogers, Allan
Winterton, Nicholas


Rooker, J. W.
Woodall, Alec


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)



Sheerman, Barry
Tellers for the Noes:


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Mr. Walter Harrison and


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Mr. Hugh McCartney.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That, in the opinion of this House.

(a) the salaries payable to Members of this House should be:—

(i) £18,500 for Members not falling within subparagraph (ii); and
(ii) £13,875 for Officers of this House and Members receiving a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 or a pension under section 26 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972;

(b) the implementation of this recommendation should be by means of five equal increments, to be effective from 22 June 1983, 1st January 1984, 1st January 1985, 1st January 1986 and 1st January 1987 respectively; and
(c) the salary of a Member should from 1st January 1988 be linked to that paid to a civil servant at the point in the grade of national salaries which is receiving £18,500 on 13th June 1983 and the parliamentary salary of Members within paragraph (a)(ii) above should be seventy-five per cent. of that figure: provided that this paragraph would not have effect unless approved by a Resolution of the House during the first three months of each Parliament.

Amendment (b) proposed to motion No. 4, in line 4, leave out from 'should' to end of line 14 and insert:
be raised so as to be £11,364 for the year ending 31st March 1984 and £12,000 for any subsequent year;".—[Mr. Ward.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 241, Noes 201.

Division No. 30]
[3.25 pm


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Ancram, Michael


Amess, David
Arnold, Tom





Ashby, David
Gummer, John Selwyn


Atkins Robert (South Ribble)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)
Hanley, Jeremy


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Baldry, Anthony
Harris, David


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Harvey, Robert


Batiste, Spencer
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hayhoe, Barney


Bellingham, Henry
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Benyon, William
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hickmet, Richard


Best, Keith
Hicks, Robert


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hind, Kenneth


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Blaker, Rt Hon Peter
Holt, Richard


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Howard, Michael


Bottomley, Peter
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Bright, Graham
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Brooke, Hon Peter
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Bruinvels, Peter
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Bryan, Sir Paul
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Key, Robert


Buck, Sir Antony
Kilfedder, James A.


Budgen, Nick
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Burt, Alistair
King, Rt Hon Tom


Butcher, John
Knowles, Michael


Butler, Hon Adam
Knox, David


Butterfill, John
Lamont, Norman


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lang, Ian


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Lawler, Geoffrey


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Lawrence, Ivan


Chope, Christopher
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Churchill, W. S.
Lee, John (Pendle)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Lester, Jim


Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Lightbown, David


Colvin, Michael
Lilley, Peter


Cope, John
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Corrie, John
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Dorrell, Stephen
Lord, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Luce, Richard


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lyell, Nicholas


Dunn, Robert
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Dykes, Hugh
Macfarlane, Neil


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
MacGregor, John


Eggar, Tim
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Emery, Sir Peter
Malins, Humfrey


Evennett, David
Maples, John


Eyre, Reginald
Marland, Paul


Fallon, Michael
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fletcher, Alexander
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mellor, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Merchant, Piers


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fox, Marcus
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Freeman, Roger
Miscampbell, Norman


Gale, Roger
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Galley, Roy
Molyneaux, James


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Monro, Sir Hector


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Montgomery, Fergus


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Moore, John


Glyn, Dr Alan
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Goodlad, Alastair
Needham, Richard


Gow, Ian
Nelson, Anthony


Grant, Sir Anthony
Neubert, Michael


Greenway, Harry
Newton, Tony


Gregory, Conal
Nicholls, Patrick


Grylls, Michael
Osborn, Sir John






Ottaway, Richard
Squire, Robin


Page, John (Harrow W)
Stanley, John


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Stern, Michael


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Stevens;, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Parris, Matthew
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Patten, John (Oxford)
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Pattie, Geoffrey
Stokes, John


Pawsey, James
Stradling Thomas, J.


Pollock, Alexander
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Powley, John
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Prior, Rt Hon James
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Raffan, Keith
Thornton, Malcolm


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Tracey, Richard


Rathbone, Tim
Trippier, David


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Renton, Tim
Viggers, Peter


Rhodes James, Robert
Waddington, David


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Rifkind, Malcolm
Waldegrave, Hon William


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Waller, Gary


Rossi, Hugh
Ward, John


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Ryder, Richard
Warren, Kenneth


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Watson, John


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Watts, John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wheeler, John


Scott, Nicholas
Whitney, Raymond


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wiggin, Jerry


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wood, Timothy


Shersby, Michael
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sims, Roger
Younger, Rt Hon George


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)



Soames, Hon Nicholas
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spencer, D.
Mr. Tim Sainsbury and


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Mr. John Major.


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)



NOES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Corbett, Robin


Ashdown, Paddy
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ashton, Joe
Couchman, James


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Crowther, Stan


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cunningham, Dr John


Barnett, Guy
Dalyell, Tam


Barron, Kevin
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Beith, A. J.
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Bell, Stuart
Deakins, Eric


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Dewar, Donald


Bermingham, Gerald
Dixon, Donald


Bidwell, Sydney
Dobson, Frank


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dormand, Jack


Boyes, Roland
Dubs, Alfred


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Duffy, A. E. P.


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Eadie, Alex


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Eastham, Ken


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Evans, loan (Cynon Valley)


Buchan, Norman
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Caborn, Richard
Ewing, Hurry


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Campbell, Ian
Fatchett, Derek


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Cartwright, John
Fisher, Mark


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Thomas
Forrester, John


Clay, Robert
Foster, Derek


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Foulkes, George


Cohen, Harry
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Coleman, Donald
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Garrett, W. E.


Conway, Derek
George, Bruce


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Golding, John


Coombs, Simon
Gorst, John





Gould, Bryan
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Grist, Ian
Moynihan, Hon C.


Ground, Patrick
Nellist, David


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Nicholson, J.


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Norris, Steven


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hardy, Peter
O'Brien, William


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
O'Neill, Martin


Haselhurst, Alan
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Parry Robert


Haynes, Frank
Patchett, Terry


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Pavitt, Laurie


Hirst, Michael
Pendry, Tom


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Penhaligon, David


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Pike, Peter


Home Robertson, John
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Randall, Stuart


Hoyle, Douglas
Redmond, M.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Robertson, George


Janner, Hon Greville
Rogers, Allan


John, Brynmor
Rooker, J. W.


Johnston, Russell
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sheerman, Barry


Kennedy, Charles
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kinnock, Neil
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Kirkwood, Archibald
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Lambie, David
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Lamond, James
Skinner, Dennis


Leadbitter, Ted
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Litherland, Robert
Snape, Peter


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Soley, Clive


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Spearing, Nigel


McCartney, Hugh
Steen, Anthony


McCrindle, Robert
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stott, Roger


McGuire, Michael
Strang, Gavin


McKelvey, William
Straw, Jack


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Temple-Morris, Peter


Maclennan, Robert
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


McNamara, Kevin
Tinn, James


McTaggart, Robert
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


McWilliam, John
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Madden, Max
Wainwright, R.


Maginnis, Ken
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Malone, Gerald
Wareing, Robert


Marek, Dr John
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wigley, Dafydd


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Maude, Francis
Wilson, Gordon


Maxton, John
Winnick, David


Meacher, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Meadowcroft, Michael
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Michie, William
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Mikardo, Ian



Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Tellers for the Noes:


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Mr. Alec Woodall and


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Mr. Michael Martin.


Moate, Roger

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendments made to motion No. 4: (g), in line 18, leave out from second 'which' to 'is' in line 19 and insert
`the limits specified in paragraph (a) of this Resolution apply'. —[Mr. Ward.]

(t), in line 24, leave out '£1,216' and insert '£1,136'.

(u), in line 25, leave out '£1,300' and insert '£1,200'. —[Mr. Pawsey.]

(1), in line 36, leave out from 'is' to 'payable'.

(o), in line 46, leave out from 'was' to 'payable' in line 47.

(p), in line 47, at end add—
'(h) In this Resolution "the secretarial and research allowance" means the allowance to which the limits specified in paragraph (a) of this Resolution apply so far as it is payable in respect of expenses incurred for a Member's Parliamentary duties on secretarial assistance and on research assistance for work undertaken in the proper performance of such duties. ' —[Mr. Ward.]

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, in the opinion of this House—

(a) the limit specified in paragraph (a) of the third Resolution of this House of 10th June 1982 in relation to the allowances payable in connection with a Member's office, secretarial and research expenses should be raised so as to be £11,364 for the year ending 31st March 1984 and £12,000 for any subsequent year;
(b) the secretarial and research allowance should be payable only in respect of expenses disbursed on the Member's behalf by the Fees Office in accordance with arrangements approved by Mr. Speaker;
(c) the expenses in respect of which the allowance to which the limits specified in paragraph (a) of this Resolution apply is payable should include expenses incurred in the purchase of office equipment;
(d) the limit specified in paragraph (b) of the third Resolution of this House of 5th June 1981 (provision for enabling a Member to make pension contributions in respect of persons in the payment of whose salaries expenses are incurred by him) should be increased so as to be £1,136 for the year ending 31st March 1984 and £1,200 for any subsequent year;
(e) arrangements approved by Mr. Speaker should be made for contributions in respect of the allowance to which the limit specified in paragraph (d) of this Resolution applies to be made by the Fees Office on behalf of, and as if authorised by, the Member;
(f) provision should be made for—

(i) the extension of the facilities now available to Members for free travel by rail, sea, air or public road transport, and
(ii) the payment, at the rate applicable to Members travelling on Parliamentary duties, of a car mileage allowance,

to persons in respect of whom the secretarial and research allowance of a Member is payable so as to cover, in the period of 12 months beginning with 1st January 1984 and every subsequent period of 12 months beginning with 1st January, not more than nine return journeys between London and that Member's constituency made in connection with the Member's Parliamentary duties;
(g) provision should be made under arrangements approved by Mr. Speaker for an allowance to be payable towards defraying amounts which are paid by the Fees Office on behalf of a person who has ceased to be a Member of this House, being amounts paid, under any enactment relating to redundancy, in connection with the redundancy of a person in respect of whose salary before the redundancy the secretarial and research allowance was payable;
(h) In this Resolution "the secretarial and research allowance" means the allowance to which the limits specified in paragraph (a) of this Resolution apply so far as it is payable in respect of expenses incurred for a Member's Parliamentary duties on secretarial assistance and on research assistance for work undertaken in the proper performance of such duties.

PARLIAMENTARY EXPENSES (OVERNIGHT ALLOWANCES)

Motion made, and Question put,
That, in the opinion of this House, paragraph (2)(b) of the second Resolution of this House of 22nd July 1975 (overnight expenses allowance to be 144 times the Class A (i) London rate

for a night's subsistence as obtaining in the Civil Service) should have effect for the period of 12 months ending with 31st March 1985 and every subsequent period of 12 months ending with 31st March as if for '144' there were substituted: '136'. —[Mr. Biffen.]

The House divided: Ayes 160, Noes 233.

Division No. 31]
[3.38 am


AYES


Aitken Jonathan
Lee, John (Pendle)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Ancram, Michael
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Atkins Robert (South Ribble)
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Lord, Michael


Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)
Luce, Richard


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Lyell, Nicholas


Baldry, Anthony
Macfarlane, Neil


Berry, Hon Anthony
MacGregor, John


Best, Keith
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Malins, Humfrey


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Maples, John


Bottomley, Peter
Marland, Paul


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Braine, Sir Bernard
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Bright, Graham
Mellor, David


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Merchant, Piers


Brooke, Hon Peter
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Butcher, John
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Butler, Hon Adam
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Butterfill, John
Monro, Sir Hector


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Montgomery, Fergus


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Moore, John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Moynihan, Hon C.


Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Nellist, David


Colvin, Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Coombs, Simon
Neubert, Michael


Cope, John
Newton, Tony


Dorrell, Stephen
Nicholls, Patrick


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Page, John (Harrow W)


Dunn, Robert
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Parris, Matthew


Eggar, Tim
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Eyre, Reginald
Patten, John (Oxford)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Pattie, Geoffrey


Fletcher, Alexander
Pawsey, James


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Pollock, Alexander


Fox, Marcus
Powley, John


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Freeman, Roger
Raffan, Keith


Gale, Roger
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Renton, Tim


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Rhodes James, Robert


Goodlad, Alastair
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Gow, Ian
Rifkind, Malcolm


Gummer, John Selwyn
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Rossi, Hugh


Hanley, Jeremy
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Harris, David
Ryder, Richard


Harvey, Robert
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Hayhoe, Barney
Sayeed, Jonathan


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Scott, Nicholas


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Spencer, D.


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Squire, Robin


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Stanley, John


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Stern, Michael


Kilfedder, James A.
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lamont, Norman
Stewart. Andrew (Sherwood)


Lang, Ian
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Lawrence, Ivan
Stokes, John


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Stradling Thomas, J.






Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Waller, Gary


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Ward, John


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Whitney. Raymond


Thornton, Malcolm
Wood, Timothy


Trippier, David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Viggers, Peter
Younger, Rt Hon George


Waddington, David



Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Waldegrave, Hon William
Mr. Douglas Hogg and


Walker, Bill (T'side N)
Mr. John Major.


NOES


Amess, David
Ewing, Harry


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Arnold, Tom
Fatchett, Derek


Ashby, David
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Ashton, Joe
Fisher, Mark


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Forrester, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Barnett, Guy
Foster, Derek


Batiste, Spencer
Foulkes, George


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fraser, J (Norwood)


Beith, A. J.
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Bell, Stuart
Gardiner George (Reigate)


Bellingham, Henry
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Garrett, W. E.


Bermingham, Gerald
George, Bruce


Bidwell, Sydney
Gilbert, Fit Hon Dr John


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Golding, John


Boyes, Roland
Gorst, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Grant, Sir Anthony


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Greenway, Harry


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Grist, Ian


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Grylls, Michael


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Buchan, Norman
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hardy, Peter


Caborn, Richard
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Campbell, Ian
Haselhurst, Alan


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Cartwright, John
Haynes, Frank


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hickmet, Richard


Clarke, Thomas
Hicks, Robert


Clay. Robert
Hind, Kenneth


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Cohen, Harry
Holt, Richard


Coleman, Donald
Home Robertson, John


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Conlan, Bernard
Hoyle, Douglas


Conway, Derek
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Crouch, David
Janner, Hon Greville


Crowther, Stan
John, Brynmor


Cunningham, Dr John
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dalyell, Tam
Johnston, Russell


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Deakins, Eric
Kennedy, Charles


Dewar, Donald
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Dixon, Donald
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Dobson, Frank
Kinnock, Neil


Dormand, Jack
Kirkwood, Archibald


Dubs, Alfred
Knowles, Michael


Duffy, A. E. P.
Knox, David


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Lamond, James


Dykes, Hugh
Leadbitter, Ted


Eadie, Alex
Lester, Jim


Eastham, Ken
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Emery, Sir Peter
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Evans, loan (Cynon Valley)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Litherland, Robert





Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


McCartney, Hugh
Robertson, George


McCrindle, Robert
Rogers, Allan


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Rooker, J. W.


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


McGuire, Michael
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


McKelvey, William
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Maclennan, Robert
Sheerman, Barry


McNamara, Kevin
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


McTaggart, Robert
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McWilliam, John
Shersby, Michael


Madden, Max
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Maginnis, Ken
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Malone, Gerald
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Marek, Dr John
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Marlow, Antony
Silvester, Fred


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Smith, C.(lsl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Martin, Michael
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Maxton, John
Snape, Peter


Meacher, Michael
Soley, Clive


Meadowcroft, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Michie, William
Stott, Roger


Mikardo, Ian
Strang, Gavin


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Straw, Jack


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Miscampbell, Norman
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Moate, Roger
Wainwright, R.


Molyneaux, James
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wareing, Robert


Nicholson, J.
Warren, Kenneth


Norris, Steven
Watts, John


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


O'Brien, William
Wiggin, Jerry


O'Neill, Martin
Wigley, Dafydd


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Osborn, Sir John
Wilson, Gordon


Ottaway, Richard
Winnick, David


Parry Robert
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Patchett, Terry
Winterton, Nicholas


Pavitt, Laurie
Woodall, Alec


Pendry, Tom
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Penhaligon, David
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Pike, Peter



Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Tellers for the Noes:


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Mr. James Tinn and


Randall, Stuart
Mr. David Lambie.


Redmond, M.

Question accordingly negatived.

PARLIAMENTARY EXPENSES (INNER LONDON CONSTITUENCIES)

Ordered,
That, as from 10th June 1983, for the Schedule in the Resolution of the House of 20th December 1971 relating to Parliamentary Expenses, as substituted by the Resolution of the House of 15th March 1974, there shall be substituted the following—

SCHEDULE

Battersea; Bethnal Green and Stepney; Bow and Poplar; Chelsea; The City of London and Westminster South; Dulwich; Eltham; Fulham; Greenwich; Hackney North and Stoke Newington; Hackney South and Shoreditch; Hammersmith; Hampstead and Highgate; Holborn and St. Pancras; Islington North; Islington South and Finsbury; Kensington; Lewisham, Deptford; Lewisham East; Lewisham West; Norwood; Peckham; Putney; Southwark and Bermondsey; Streatham; Tooting; Vauxhall; Westminster North; Woolwich. — [Mr. Biffen.]

RESETTLEMENT GRANT

Amendment (a) to motion No. 7 proposed, in line 15, at end add—
'and—
(4) subject as otherwise provided for in this Resolution, the rate at which grant shall be payable in respect of the dissolution of Parliament on 13th May 1983, and any subsequent dissolution, should be twice the rates specified in the fourth Resolution of this House of 4th March 1980.'.—[Mr. Ashton.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 190, Noes 203.

Division No. 32]
[3.50 am


AYES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Garrett, W. E.


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
George, Bruce


Barnett, Guy
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Golding, John


Beith, A. J.
Greenway, Harry


Bell, Stuart
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Bermingham, Gerald
Hardy, Peter


Bidwell, Sydney
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Haynes, Frank


Boyes, Roland
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hickmet, Richard


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hicks, Robert


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hirst, Michael


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Bruinvels, Peter
Home Robertson, John


Buchan, Norman
Hoyle, Douglas


Burt, Alistair
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Campbell, Ian
Janner, Hon Greville


Campbell-Savours, Dale
John, Brynmor


Cartwright, John
Johnston, Russell


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Clarke, Thomas
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Clay, Robert
Kennedy, Charles


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cohen, Harry
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Coleman, Donald
Kinnock, Neil


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Kirkwood, Archibald


Conlan, Bernard
Knowles, Michael


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Knox, David


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Lambie, David


Corbett, Robin
Lamond, James


Corbyn, Jeremy
Leadbitter, Ted


Crowther, Stan
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cunningham, Dr John
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Dalyell, Tam
Litherland, Robert


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Deakins, Eric
McCartney, Hugh


Dewar, Donald
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Dixon, Donald
McGuire, Michael


Dobson, Frank
McKelvey, William


Dormand, Jack
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Dubs, Alfred
Maclennan, Robert


Duffy, A. E. P.
McNamara, Kevin


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
McTaggart, Robert


Eadie, Alex
McWilliam, John


Eastham, Ken
Madden, Max


Evans, loan (Cynon Valley)
Maginnis, Ken


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Marek, Dr John


Ewing, Harry
Marlow, Antony


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Fatchett, Derek
Martin, Michael


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Fisher, Mark
Maxton, John


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Meacher, Michael


Forrester, John
Meadowcroft. Michael


Foster, Derek
Michie, William


Foulkes, George
Mikardo, Ian





Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Skinner, Dennis


Miscampbell, Norman
Smith, C.(lsl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Nellist, David
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Nicholson, J.
Soley, Clive


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Spearing, Nigel


O'Brien, William
Stott, Roger


O'Neill, Martin
Strang, Gavin


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Straw, Jack


Parry Robert
Sumberg, David


Patchett, Terry
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Pavitt, Laurie
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Pendry, Tom
Tinn, James


Penhaligon, David
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Pike, Peter
Wainwright, R.


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Randall, Stuart
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Redmond, M.
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Rhodes James, Robert
Wareing, Robert


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Watts, John


Richardson, Ms Jo
Wigley, Dafydd


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Robertson, George
Wilson, Gordon


Rogers, Allan
Winnick, David


Rooker, J. W.
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Winterton, Nicholas


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Woodall, Alec


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Sheerman, Barry
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.



Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Mr. Joseph Ashton and


Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Mr. Peter Snape.


NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Amess, David
Eggar, Tim


Ancram, Michael
Eyre, Reginald


Arnold, Tom
Fallon, Michael


Atkins Robert (South Ribble)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Fletcher, Alexander


Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Baldry, Anthony
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Batiste, Spencer
Fox, Marcus


Bellingham, Henry
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh


Berry, Hon Anthony
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Best, Keith
Freeman, Roger


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gale, Roger


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Blaker, Rt Hon Peter
Glyn, Dr Alan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bottomley, Peter
Goodlad, Alastair


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gow, Ian


Bright, Graham
Gregory, Conal


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Ground, Patrick


Brooke, Hon Peter
Grylls, Michael


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Gummer, John Selwyn


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Budgen, Nick
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butcher, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Butler, Hon Adam
Harris, David


Butterfill, John
Harvey, Robert


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hayhoe, Barney


Chope, Christopher
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hind, Kenneth


Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Holt, Richard


Colvin, Michael
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Conway, Derek
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Coombs, Simon
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Cope, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Corrie, John
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Couchman, James
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Crouch, David
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dorrell, Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Kilfedder, James A.


Dunn, Robert
King, Rt Hon Tom






Lamont, Norman
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Lang, Ian
Rathbone, Tim


Lawler, Geoffrey
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Lawrence, Ivan
Renton, Tim


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Lester, Jim
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lilley, Peter
Ryder, Richard


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lord, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Luce, Richard
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lyell, Nicholas
Scott, Nicholas


McCrea, Rev William
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Macfarlane, Neil
Silvester, Fred


MacGregor, John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Major, John
Spencer, D.


Malins, Humfrey
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Malone, Gerald
Squire, Robin


Maples, John
Stanley, John


Marland, Paul
Stern, Michael


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mellor, David
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Merchant, Piers
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stokes, John


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Molyneaux, James
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Monro, Sir Hector
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Montgomery, Fergus
Thornton, Malcolm


Moore, John
Tracey, Richard


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Trippier, David


Moynihan, Hon C.
Trotter, Neville


Needham, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nelson, Anthony
Viggers, Peter


Neubert, Michael
Waddington, David


Newton, Tony
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Nicholls, Patrick
Waldegrave, Hon William


Norris, Steven
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Page, John (Harrow W)
Waller, Gary


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Ward, John


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Watson, John


Parris, Matthew
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Whitney, Raymond


Patten, John (Oxford)
Wood, Timothy


Pattie, Geoffrey
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Pawsey, James
Younger, Rt Hon George


Pollock, Alexander



Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Tellers for the Noes:


Powley, John
Mr. Douglas Hogg and


Prior, Rt Hon James
Mr. Archie Hamilton.


Raffan, Keith

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, in the opinion of this House, provision should be made in respect of the grant payable in accordance with paragraph (9) of the second Resolution of this House of 20th December 1971 and the fourth Resolution of this House of 4th March 1980 to persons who on a dissolution of Parliament cease to be Members of this House as follows:—

(1) subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), that grant should be payable (and be treated in relation to the dissolution of Parliament on 13th May 1983 as having been payable) whenever, at the general election consequent upon a dissolution of Parliament, a person who was a Member of this House immediately before the dissolution does not stand for election to this House or, if he does, is not elected;
(2) that grant should not be payable, on the dissolution of the present or any future Parliament, to a person who has attained the age of 65 before the dissolution; and

(3) on the dissolution of the present or any future Parliament, no period of service as a Member of this House should be taken into account in accordance with the said fourth Resolution if that period has been taken into account on a pervious occasion on which a grant was payable in accordance with one or both of those Resolutions.

TRAVEL (MEMBERS' CHILDREN)

Resolved,
That, in the opinion of this House, for the period of 12 months beginning with 1st January 1984 and every subsequent period of 12 months beginning with 1st January,—

(a) a journey by a child of a Member of this House, being a journey in respect of which facilities for free travel are provided in accordance with the fourth Resolution of this House of 10th June 1982, should not count against the number of journeys for which facilities for free travel are available to the Member's spouse; but
(b) facilities for free travel should not be so provided in the case of any particular child in respect of more than fifteen return journeys.—[Mr. Biffen.]

MEMBERS' PENSIONS

Amendment (c) to motion No. 9 proposed, in line 4, at end add
`except that, in recommendation (ix), the appropriate pension contribution rate should be 9 per cent. of salary.' —[Mr. du Cann.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 203, Noes 191.

Division No. 33]
[4 01


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dunn, Robert


Amess, David
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Ancram, Michael
Eggar, Tim


Atkins Robert (South Ribble)
Eyre, Reginald


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)
Fletcher, Alexander


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Baldry, Anthony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bellingham, Henry
Fox, Marcus


Berry, Hon Anthony
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Best, Keith
Freeman, Roger


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gale, Roger


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Blaker, Rt Hon Peter
Glyn, Dr Alan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bottomley, Peter
Goodlad, Alastair


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gow, Ian


Braine, Sir Bernard
Greenway, Harry


Bright, Graham
Gregory, Conal


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Grylls, Michael


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gummer, John Selwyn


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bruinvels, Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hanley, Jeremy


Budgen, Nick
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Burt, Alistair
Harris, David


Butcher, John
Harvey, Robert


Butler, Hon Adam
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Butterfill, John
Hayhoe, Barney


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hind, Kenneth


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Holt, Richard


Chope, Christopher
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Colvin, Michael
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Cope, John
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Corrie, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Kilfedder, James A.


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)






King, Rt Hon Tom
Renton, Tim


Lamont, Norman
Rhodes James, Robert


Lang, Ian
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lawler, Geoffrey
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lawrence, Ivan
Rifkind, Malcolm


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lilley, Peter
Ryder, Richard


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lord, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Luce, Richard
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lyell, Nicholas
Scott, Nicholas


McCrindle, Robert
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Macfarlane, Neil
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


MacGregor, John
Silvester, Fred


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Skinner, Dennis


Maginnis, Ken
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Major, John
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Malins, Humfrey
Spencer, D.


Maples, John
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Marland, Paul
Squire, Robin


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stanley, John


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stern, Michael


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Mellor, David
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Merchant, Piers
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stokes, John


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Sumberg, David


Molyneaux, James
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Monro, Sir Hector
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Montgomery, Fergus
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Moore, John
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Thornton, Malcolm


Moynihan, Hon C.
Tracey, Richard


Needham, Richard
Trippier, David


Nelson, Anthony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Neubert, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Newton, Tony
Waddington, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Wainwright, R.


Nicholson, J.
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Norris, Steven
Waldegrave, Hon William


Page, John (Harrow W)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Waller, Gary


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Ward, John


Parris, Matthew
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Watson, John


Patten, John (Oxford)
Watts, John


Pattie, Geoffrey
Whitney, Raymond


Pawsey, James
Wood, Timothy


Pollock, Alexander
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Powley, John



Prior, Rt Hon James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Raffan, Keith
Mr. Tristan Garel Jones and


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Mr. Douglas Hogg.


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)



NOES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Ashton, Joe
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Buchan, Norman


Barnett, Guy
Caborn, Richard


Batiste, Spencer
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Campbell, Ian


Beith, A. J.
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Bell, Stuart
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Clarke, Thomas


Bermingham, Gerald
Clay, Robert


Bidwell, Sydney
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cohen, Harry


Boyes, Roland
Coleman, Donald


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Conlan, Bernard





Conway, Derek
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Litherland, Robert


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Coombs, Simon
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Corbett, Robin
McCartney, Hugh


Corbyn, Jeremy
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Crouch, David
McGuire, Michael


Crowther, Stan
McKelvey, William


Cunningham, Dr John
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Dalyell, Tam
Maclennan, Robert


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
McNamara, Kevin


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
McTaggart, Robert


Dewar, Donald
McWilliam, John


Dixon, Donald
Madden, Max


Dobson, Frank
Malone, Gerald


Dormand, Jack
Marek, Dr John


Dubs, Alfred
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Eadie, Alex
Meacher, Michael


Eastham, Ken
Meadowcroft, Michael


Evans, loan (Cynon Valley)
Michie, William


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Mikardo, Ian


Ewing, Harry
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Fallon, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman


Fatchett, Derek
Moate, Roger


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Nellist, David


Fisher, Mark
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
O'Brien, William


Forrester, John
O'Neill, Martin


Foster, Derek
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Foulkes, George
Parry Robert


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Patchett, Terry


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Pavitt, Laurie


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Pendry, Tom


Garrett, W. E.
Penhaligon, David


George, Bruce
Pike, Peter


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Golding, John
Randall, Stuart


Gorst, John
Rathbone, Tim


Grist, Ian
Redmond, M.


Ground, Patrick
Richardson, Ms Jo


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Robertson, George


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Rogers, Allan


Hardy, Peter
Rooker, J. W.


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Haselhurst, Alan
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Sheerman, Barry


Haynes, Frank
Shersby, Michael


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hicks, Robert
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Hirst, Michael
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Smith, C.(lsl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Home Robertson, John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Snape, Peter


Hoyle, Douglas
Soley, Clive


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Stott, Roger


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Strang, Gavin


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Straw, Jack


Janner, Hon Greville
Temple-Morris, Peter


John, Brynmor
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Johnston, Russell
Tinn, James


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Kennedy, Charles
Wareing, Robert


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Warren, Kenneth


Kinnock, Neil
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Kirkwood, Archibald
Wigley, Dafydd


Knowles, Michael
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Knox, David
Wilson, Gordon


Lambie, David
Winnick, David


Lamond, James
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Leadbitter, Ted
Winterton, Nicholas


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Woodall, Alec


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Wrigglesworth, Ian






Young, David (Bolton SE)
Mr. John Maxton and


Mr. Michael J. Martin.



Tellers for the Noes:

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Twentieth Report of the Review Body on Top Salaries (Cmnd. 8881) and agrees with the recommendations contained in that Report with respect to the pensions of Members of this House, being recommendations (v) to (x) set out in paragraph 226 of Volume 1 of that Report, except that, in recommendation (ix), the appropriate pension contribution rate should be 9 per cent. of salary.'

South London Hospital for Women

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neubert.]

Mr. William Shelton: I wish to raise the question of the proposed closure of the South London Hospital for Women. This hospital is well-nigh unique in the country because it caters for women patients only and is staffed by women. Nevertheless, the Wandsworth health authority has recommended its closure. The decision now rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.
Why has this closure been recommended? It seems that the first reason is that it is desired to save some £5 million a year in running costs, that being what it now costs to run the hospital. Yet within the same health authority it is proposed that tens of millions of additional money should be spent on building and running a new wing at the relatively nearby St. George's hospital.
I am told that in 1989–90 the cost of running that at 1982 prices will be more than £13 million, and of course the capital cost of building it will have its own additional cost. Not only is the additional cost proposed for St. George's at the expense of the South London, but I am advised that the beds in St. George's are at a higher unit bed cost than those at the South London. Moreover, there would be little gain in additional beds in the area, because the proposal would be not only to close the South London, but to pull down the Knightsbridge wing of St. George's in order to build the new wing, known as phase 2A.
The South London hospital borders right on a different health district. It is in the Wandsworth health authority, but it lies alongside the west Lambeth district health authority, which has announced that if the South London is closed, it will look for about 80 more beds, and will look to the Government to fund them. Those on the Wandsworth health authority have said that ii: is no concern of theirs. It may or may not be, but it is certainly the concern of both my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government.
Of course one appreciates the ambitions of those who wish St. George's to be a showpiece, and one of Europe's finest hospitals. No doubt there are some who regard the South London as standing in the way of that ambition. However, I think that hon. Members will agree that ambition must not overrule logic, common sense and financial prudence.
The second reason is that the health authority says that the savings achieved would also be used to increase geriatric care in the authority. Of course that is good, but only three years ago the same authority closed St. Benedict's hospital in Tooting which specialised in such beds. I wonder why it closed that hospital.
The third reason is that it is said that the use of beds in the South London is poor. A comparison is made between the rate of occupancy of beds in the South London and St. George's. That is misleading for the simple reason that the South London does not have an accident unit while St. George's does. Any hospital with an accident unit will automatically show a higher turnover, because of the number of short-stay patients.
The unit cost per bed at the South London is only 57 per cent. of that at St. George's. Indeed, in 1981–82 a DHSS document on national average costs stated that


hospitals with between 100 and 300 beds almost always cost significantly less to run than those with 300 or more beds. Therefore, it is also cheaper to run the South London than the new wing at St. George's.
Fourthly, it is said that Wandsworth health authority is "over-bedded", and that there is an unnecessary provision of beds. However, if that is so, why is it that both the accident and emergency units of St. George's and St. John's, in the same authority, have been closed more than once, especially in winter, because they have no spare beds with which to receive new patients. One wonders whether there can be an unnecessary provision of beds. In addition, in 1982, the South London had some 3,600 new gynaecological outpatients. That is 560 more than the number of new outpatients attending St. George's and St. John's together. Thus, if the South London is closed, how can one talk of re-provision? It must be unrealistic.
In an extraordinary way, the whole community has shown its wish to retain and save the South London. There was a petition with more than 50,000 signatures to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Indeed, in the House itself, there was an early-day motion signed by 101 Members. I remind my hon. Friend that in 1980 the DHSS wrote:
There is a real risk of concentrating services more heavily than the advantages strictly justify.
I entirely agree with that. What is proposed by the Wandsworth health authority reminds me of the past mistakes that were made on schools. Over-large schools were built at the expense of smaller schools of proven worth. That mistake is very much regretted in many areas today. I suggest that this grandiose scheme, this enormous new provision and addition to a large existing hospital, St. George's, is out of keeping with the needs of the day and the needs of financial prudence. It cannot be sensible to build large hospitals that are too expensive to run.
What can be done? Several workable proposals have been put forward. The first is that savings should be made in the Wandsworth health authority. It is one of the largest spending authorities and by the time phase 2, the new addition, comes along, its capital budget will be little short of £100 million. There is talk of proliferation of administration in the health authority. There have been repeated and fervent requests for the postponement of phase 2 while an audit and reappraisal take place. That would be a sensible move.
A second proposal, which has been advanced by community health interests, was to close St. John's instead of the South London Hospital for Women or to withdraw geriatric patients from St. John's and close four wards. That is a possibility and I must tell my hon. Friend that the South London Hospital building is in better condition than St. John's.
The third proposal, which I think should be considered carefully, is to forge a link between our two remaining women's hospitals, the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson hospital and the South London Hospital for Women. It is proposed that a joint trust should be set up and that they should receive super-regional funding, which I believe the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson already does. I have a letter before me from Dr. Ridley, the chairman of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson hospital medical committee. It says:
In principle my colleagues would be in favour of separate funding to involve both hospitals though detailed discussions would be needed to clarify the position.

I urge my hon. Friend to pursue this and I hope it will be pursued in other quarters as well. This is a way forward to save this hospital of proven worth, one which the community so strongly supports and one which the community so greatly needs and so greatly values.
I ask my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider this matter carefully because if it is shut, an error will be made.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Does the hon. Gentleman have the agreement of the hon. Member who has the Adjournment and of the Minister to intervene?

Mr. Dubs: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) for giving me a few minutes of his Adjournment debate to add my comments to his about the future of the South London Hospital for Women.
It is clear that there has been enormous pressure on the financial resources of the Wandsworth health district. I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Streatham about the new development at St. George's and its need for funds. Nevertheless, I sincerely hope that the consequence will not be the closure of the South London Hospital for Women.
The hospital was founded 70 years ago and has served not only the women of south London but the women of London as a whole and, indeed, a wider part of the country throughout that period. It is the only acute hospital in the country that provides a full range of services by women for women. If that hospital were to disappear, never again in our lifetimes would there be such a hospital for those who currently make a great deal of use of it. It is well known that many women prefer the care that only that hospital provides. Some of them may be members of the Asian community, who have special reasons for wanting to use the hospital.
Above all, the hospital has wide local support. Ever since the first move to close it became known, I have been astonished at how passionately people in my constituency and the surrounding areas feel about it, and how anxious they are that it should be kept open. I have been involved in collecting signatures in Balham high road for a petition to save the hospital, and people have rushed to sign it. The hospital has an active friends organisation which, together with the GLC, has only recently provided a laser for the treatment of cancer, something that has been much needed and which St. George's does not have. It says much for the commitment of a local community that they should subscribe so generously to the laser for the hospital.
If the hospital were to close, the people of the area would be denied the significant element of choice in their health care. That would be a pity. I fear that if we allow the hospital to close, it will not be long before St. George's provides the only hospital care in the area. I have a great deal of respect for that hospital, and I am not knocking it. However, it would be a pity to take away that element of choice that should be a feature of health care in our community.
The hospital has a good reputation and a great deal of local support. I urge the Minister to find a way to enable the Wandsworth district council to keep open the hospital. The hon. Member for Streatham suggested possible ways


of doing that with the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson hospital. We are having a meeting in the House later today, when many people connected with the hospital will be here. One of the probable conclusions of the meeting will be a request for some form of central or national funding to enable that unique hospital to be kept open.
I hope that the Minister will think seriously about that. I hope that he will take note of the strength of local feeling and the enormous contribution that the hospital has made to health care in London and throughout the country. I hope that he will consider sympathetically the request made by the hon. Member for Streatham and myself and by many thousands of people.

The Under-Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. John Patten): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) for raising, with his customary elegance, this important issue. I realise its importance to the members of the community that he and the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) represent. The appearance in the debate of the hon. Member for Battersea is an uncovenanted bonus. It is a pleasure to listen to him.
I am aware that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and a number of hon. Members have received representations from the area about the hospital's future. I am pleased to have this opportunity to try to explain the current position and to clarify one or two issues that have been raised. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not comment in any detail to 'fight on a possible marriage between the South London Hospital for Women and the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson. That idea is new to me.
I wish to stress at the outset that no decision on closure has yet been taken. In view of the many representations my colleagues and I have received about the proposed closure, I will ensure that hon. Members who are concerned have an opportunity to meet one of my ministerial colleagues or myself to discuss the issue at greater length so that they may have a chance to make their views known. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health will also be meeting the chairman of Wandsworth health authority together with local representatives later this week to discuss the district's financial position as it relates to the closure of the hospital.
Without wishing to sound adversarial—because it is not my intention so to sound—I shall make a number of points about the hospital and set it in the context of health care generally in London. The South London Hospital for Women, which is on the south side of Clapham common but managed by the Wandsworth health authority, has been in existence for about 70 years, having been set up in 1912, with two clear aims. The first was to enable women patients who preferred to be treated by women doctors to get that treatment. The second was to train women doctors as hospital specialists at a time when it was extremely difficult in this country, as it was throughout western Europe, for women doctors to gain appropriate graduate experience and postgraduate training.
There have since 1912 been considerable changes in attitude towards those two issues. It is now possible for any qualified woman doctor to have the opportunity of following whatever form of postgraduate medical training she chooses. This equality of opportunity for women doctors is protected by legislation and currently nearly half of all students entering medical schools are women. Thus,

not only is there equality of opportunity for women training as doctors, but it is much more likely, not only in London but throughout the country that a woman who wishes to be treated by a woman doctor will get that opportunity.
I fully appreciate that some women prefer — for religious, cultural or other reasons — to be seen by women doctors. Indeed, it is the policy of almost all district health authorities that when women wish to be seen by women doctors they should be treated in that way, and that is certainly the case in Wandsworth, where the authority arranges for women who wish to be seen by female doctors so to be seen, unless exceptional circumstances make that impossible.
Here I pick up a point made by the hon. Member for Battersea about the national role of the Hospital. Looking at the most recent figures, it is important to realise that the hospital provides an essentially local service, as against a national service. For example, fewer than 3 per cent. of the patients who travelled to the hospital came from the GLC area north of the Thames, and fewer than 2 per cent. who travelled to the hospital came from outside the GLC area, so, as I say, it is providing substantially a local service.
As my hon. Friend knows well, because he has been deeply concerned with the issue, the former Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority envisaged the closure of the South London hospital in the late 1980s, before the opening of phase IIA of St. George's hospital. But a number of factors have influenced the new Wandsworth health authority to bring forward both the consultation programme and the date of the proposed closure of the hospital. These include the need to ensure that the necessary revenue will be available to open St. George's hospital before contracts are let next year, and my department has asked all health authorities throughout the country to ensure that the extra revenue requirements of their new schemes which call for additional resources can be met before contracts are let out to tender. That is essential if we are to avoid the tragedy of having new and much needed hospital developments failing to open because of lack of funds.
Two main factors have influenced the Wandsworth health authority to bring forward the proposed closure from the late 1980s to 1984. First, the authority is properly concerned to take steps to remain within its statutory cash limit, which it must do. Wandsworth has a difficult task in facing a reduction in its revenue allocation. Secondly, the authority is concerned to find ways of improving services for priority care groups throughout the district, particularly the mentally ill. It has therefore proposed the earlier closure of the south London hospital, partly to release extra resources in the interim for these services. Closure of the hospital is expected to yield savings of about £5 million annually. In the short term this will enable the authority to reprovide the services currently provided at the south London hospital at St. George's and St. James's hospitals. The savings would also allow the authority to bring about much needed improvements in services for the mentally ill at Springfield hospital and to meet the authority's reduction in revenue allocations.
Any health authority proposing a closure of any hospital, let alone a much loved hospital that is deeply embedded in the local community, goes through the most careful process and procedures of consultation. That has certainly been so with the proposal that we are discussing.


Where the local community health council is not in agreement with the changes that are proposed, the issue is rightly referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for a final decision. I reiterate that no decision has been taken.
I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that very full local consideration and consultation will have already taken place before the issue lands on Ministers' desks. My Department will carefully consider the district's proposals the community health council's alternative proposals and the views of hon. Members and their constituents who have written to us before a final decision is made. The most interesting suggestion of my hon. Friend will be included in that consideration.
I realise that my hon. Friend is especially concerned about the consequences of the proposed closure for some of his constituents. I am advised from local sources that it is the location of antenatal facilities that is causing considerable concern. That is perhaps more significant than the location of inpatient facilities in terms of overall travelling times. The health authority has undertaken to maintain the antenatal facilities in the vicinity of the south

London hospital should that hospital close. This means that patients from the Lambeth area and their relatives would need to travel to St. George's hospital only when in need of admittance for delivery or some other form of inpatient obstetric care. There is the guarantee that should the hospital close antenatal services of an adequate level would be provided in the immediate area.
I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the Wandsworth health authority has taken steps to minimise any hardship to the residents should a decision be taken to close the south London hospital. I understand that there have been continuing discussions between the chairman and officers of Wandsworth and West Lambeth health authorities about the implications of the proposed closure for residents in both districts.
I thank my hon. Friend warmly for raising this important issue and giving it an airing in the House. I assure him that his comments and those of all interested parties will be taken into account before a decision is made on a closure of the hospital.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Five o'clock a.m.